On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 4:46 AM, Christopher Gilbreth <cngilbr...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Ok. A large part of what I'm thinking about here though is: many extensions > to C have been invented out of necessity over the years in order to > accomplish certain tasks; and it would be a good idea to take a look at what > the major classes of extensions have been (such as function and variable > attributes), and try to ensure that BitC either has that functionality, or > is forward-compatible with similar changes. Just a matter of ensuring that > we're building on what's been done before in the systems programming arena. > I agree with what you are saying, but it's time to stop augmenting the language and try to get something out that we can work with. Time to stop adding features to BitC - it's important for a successful language *not* to try to solve *all* problems. > If the parser were incompatible with e.g. function attributes attached to > lambda expressions, that would probably be a bad thing. > C#, for example, suffers this problem. shap
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list bitc-dev@coyotos.org http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
