On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 20:29:43 +0000, Herbert Snorrason wrote: > On 29/01/06, Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Basically the plan is that when an internal AST language is decided > > upon, the macros will be able to get either the source code text, or > > an AST. > Two things. First, if the AST path is taken, doesn't that mean that > the AST representation has to be compatible between implementations > (assuming there'll be more than one)?
Yes. > Secondly, there's ease of use. ASTs are, at least from what I've > seen, pretty verbose. Aren't we trying to make things easy for the > programmer? With source text, doing manipulations by hand can be a > bother, so that's no solution either... > > Maybe I'm spoiled by the idea of s-expressions, though. But I get > the impression that lispy macros are where the idea comes from... Well, the aim is to get something as nice as lisp macros. Hopefully the AST will be easy enough to chew with the tools provided in the language. Remember, however, that this is not a parse tree, and is thus somewhat simpler. BTW, do we also support parse trees? -- () Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0xEBD27418 perl hacker & /\ kung foo master: /me sushi-spin-kicks : neeyah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
pgp2T1llLenSI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
