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 useful ideas.
> >> But if Christopher's analysis is correct,
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 useful ideas.
But if Christopher's analysis is correct, the "macro" bit is different
to the "p
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
Yigal Chripun wrote:
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.
N
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 took the nuclea
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 took the nuclear option, and its macros are all
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 took the nuclear option, and its macros are all
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. That's
a rea
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. That's
a reasonable way of doing things. I'd be happy with a
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
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 need at compile-time, using the same syntax as
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 11:25 AM, 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
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 11:25 AM, 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 exam
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 basing my views on pages like this
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 basing my views on pages like this:
>
> http://nemerl
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 1:06 AM, Don wrote:
> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Don wrote:
>>>
>>> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:17:59 -0400, Jarrett Billingsley
wrote:
> It's also insanely kludgy and ugly. Bleh.
>>>
>>>
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Don wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:17:59 -0400, Jarrett Billingsley
wrote:
It's also insanely kludgy and ugly. Bleh.
Ugly, yes. Kludgy, I don't think so. It's only a syntax issue. The basic
concept of pa
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Don wrote:
By contrast, something like Nemerle macros are a kludge. The idea of
providing a 'hook' into the compiler is a horrible hack. It exposes all
kinds of compiler internals. Yes, it has nicer syntax.
Are you talking specifically abo
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Don wrote:
>> By contrast, something like Nemerle macros are a kludge. The idea of
>> providing a 'hook' into the compiler is a horrible hack. It exposes all
>> kinds of compiler internals. Yes, it has nicer syntax.
Are you talking specifically about the abilit
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Don wrote:
> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:17:59 -0400, Jarrett Billingsley
>> wrote:
>>
>>> It's also insanely kludgy and ugly. Bleh.
>
> Ugly, yes. Kludgy, I don't think so. It's only a syntax issue. The basic
> concept of passing meta
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:17:59 -0400, Jarrett Billingsley
wrote:
It's also insanely kludgy and ugly. Bleh.
Ugly, yes. Kludgy, I don't think so. It's only a syntax issue. The basic
concept of passing meta-code to the compiler in the form of raw text is
simple:
m
On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:17:59 -0400, Jarrett Billingsley
wrote:
It's also insanely kludgy and ugly. Bleh.
If all a macro did was translate a scoped normal symbol to a mixin (or
other macro) statement, would this take care of the ugliness? (would also
be an insanely simple solution)
i.e
23 matches
Mail list logo
