Don Wrote:
> Yigal Chripun wrote:
> > On 12/10/2009 10:47, Don wrote:
> >>
> >> Ah, OK. My cursory glance at Nemerle just screamed "hack". But first
> >> impressions can be misleading.
> >> No doubt as a C-family language, they have some usef
On 12/10/2009 10:47, Don wrote:
Ah, OK. My cursory glance at Nemerle just screamed "hack". But first
impressions can be misleading.
No doubt as a C-family language, they have some useful ideas.
But if Christopher's analysis is correct, the "macro" bit is different
to the "plugin" bit. I think al
On 10/10/2009 10:50, Don wrote:
Yigal Chripun wrote:
On 10/10/2009 00:36, Christopher Wright wrote:
Yigal Chripun wrote:
On 09/10/2009 00:38, Christopher Wright wrote:
It makes macros highly compiler-specific, or requires the
compiler's AST
to be part of the language.
Nemerle too
On 10/10/2009 00:36, Christopher Wright wrote:
Yigal Chripun wrote:
On 09/10/2009 00:38, Christopher Wright wrote:
It makes macros highly compiler-specific, or requires the compiler's AST
to be part of the language.
Nemerle took the nuclear option, and its macros are all-powerful. Tha
On 08/10/2009 17:25, Don wrote:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 4:00 AM, Don wrote:
So it looks to me like the mechanics of it are basically identical.
Just Nemerle's syntax is nicer.
Only with trivial examples. With more complicated examples they look
less
identical. I'm b
On 09/10/2009 00:38, Christopher Wright wrote:
Bill Baxter wrote:
It seems macros are implemented as compiler extensions. You compile
your macros into DLLs first, that then get loaded into the compiler as
plugins. On the plus side, doing things that way you really do have
access to any API you n
Weed wrote:
bearophile пишет:
> Weed:
>> Planned in the future to implement inheritance of structs or the
static creation of classes?
>
> Inheritance of structs: I think it's not planned. Structs in D are
meant to be used for different things than classes.
> Yet, as time passes structs are g
