On 10/18/05, Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>> "SL" == Stevan Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > SL> On Oct 18, 2005, at 1:45 PM, Luke Palmer wrote: > > >> On 10/18/05, Rob Kinyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>> 3) Macros. Nuff said. > >>> > >> > >> Not quite. Lispish macros, that is, macros that let you look at what > >> you're expanding. > > SL> To further expand on this, they will be AST-manipulating macros (LISP > SL> style) rather than text-replacing macros (C style). > > my impression is that both styles are supported as you can return either > text or an AST (compiled code) from a macro.
That sounds really ... inefficient. For that to work, you'd have to have seen the macro definition earlier in the parse cycle, then encounter the call to the macro (thus consuming the token), unshift the tokens of the macro into the parse queue (thus necessitating a parse queue), then reparse the whole block because of potential bracing issues. Text-substitution macros would have to be handled in an earlier pass, but the macro might be referencing items from BEGIN blocks already seen ... It's called a preprocessor in C for a reason. Rob
