[Pharo-users] Macros?
Well, I've already asked about adding new literals to pharo or Smalltalk in general, however this time I have a better idea: macros. Can they be added? Because if I understand correctly they may be the only way to do that.
Re: [Pharo-users] Literals (Richard Sargent)
Well, set idea was just a small proposal, which had to help me in solving a
harder problem. I wanted to add something like extensionable literal. The
idea is that when compiler sees some special literal, it reads it, turns
into an object and sends #parse message to it. After that literal answers
something which compiler uses and considers as a result of this literal.
Example:
`#{1 2 3}`
So compiler sees that literal initializes with it and object. Then object
receives #parse message. It easily defines that its contents is set
ctration and after parsing returns set object. This idea is my original
intention. I hope its better than previous.
Re: [Pharo-users] Literals (Richard O'Keefe)
Can you please tell more about ##() thing?
[Pharo-users] Literals
You know, literals are quite useful in case when you want to shorten some
object initialization. For example #() and {} for arrays and $[]for byte
arrays. However, if there is a way to add custom literals, for example for
sets (something like #{} I guess)? how to do it? and can some special kind
of objects for creating literals easily be added to Pharo?
