C syntax with a 'hack' and a caveat should now work in Felix.
The syntax is not full C, but these should work:
function definitions
variables and parameters like 'int x'
typedefs
struct
union
which I think is all of C... :)
[Felix enum is already the same
Quoting skaller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 19:48 +0200, Emmanuel Onzon wrote:
>> Quoting skaller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> > The point is you can't delete the translated rule because
>> > it is physically a different Ocaml term.
>>
>> It should only need to be structurally equal
On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 19:48 +0200, Emmanuel Onzon wrote:
> Quoting skaller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > The point is you can't delete the translated rule because
> > it is physically a different Ocaml term.
>
> It should only need to be structurally equal to the existing
> rule you want to delete, no
On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 19:48 +0200, Emmanuel Onzon wrote:
> Quoting skaller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > rules is more or less useless, because it requires you
> > keep an exact copy of the rule.
>
> Why ?
how else can it recognize the rule?
--
John Skaller
Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.s
Quoting skaller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 10:08 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Maybe you can try to delete the rules of Felix that are causing the
>> ambiguity when csyntax is opened.
>
> I'm not sure how to delete a rule. The function to delete
You just have to use
dyp
On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 10:08 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Maybe you can try to delete the rules of Felix that are causing the
> ambiguity when csyntax is opened.
I'm not sure how to delete a rule. The function to delete
rules is more or less useless, because it requires you
keep an exact copy
On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 03:49 +1000, skaller wrote:
> Just some notes here that providing C syntax with Felix leads
> to some interesting ambiguities such as:
>
> int f(long q) { return x; }
>
> being interpreted as
>
> call (int f) (long q) { return x; };
>
> i.e. as a call, because all the term
Just some notes here that providing C syntax with Felix leads
to some interesting ambiguities such as:
int f(long q) { return x; }
being interpreted as
call (int f) (long q) { return x; };
i.e. as a call, because all the terms here are valid expressions
in Felix. OTOH 'int' isn't a keyword. Eve
On 7/16/07, skaller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The latest version of Felix now allows you to use
> some C like syntax for
Eww! :)
Thats pretty swanky! What do you think about renaming cstuff to
csyntax? Seems like that might be more appropriate. This is really
cool.
---
The latest version of Felix now allows you to use
some C like syntax for
* parameters
* function and procedure definitions
/
#import
open syntax cstuff; // to get the C grammar
fun f(int x, long *y, z:int):int = {
return x + int(*y) + z;
}
var x =
10 matches
Mail list logo
