> On Dec 1, 2016, at 9:39 PM, Robin Sommer <ro...@icir.org> wrote:
>
> https://www.bro.org/development/projects/broker-lang-ext.html
>
> Feedback welcome, this is just a first draft.
Looks like a big improvement, some ideas:
Not that syntax is super important to nail down right away, but to me, “v as T”
syntax is simpler than "as<T>(v)”.
Is there a reason "type(v)” can’t be stored? I’d probably find it more
intuitive if it could, else I can see myself forgetting or making mistakes
related to that. Alternative to even providing “type(v)”, you could have a “v
is T” operation and to use an explicit/new “typeswitch (v)” statement instead
of re-using “switch (type(v))”.
Between the two switch syntaxes you gave, maybe provide both and allow mixing
of syntax between cases. E.g.:
switch ( type(v) ) {
case bool -> b:
print “it’s a bool, and I need to inspect the value", b;
break;
case count:
print “it’s a count, but I don’t care what the value is, I just wanted
to know if it’s a count”;
break;
}
"Asynchronous executions without when”: I’d go with an explicit keyword to
denote when a handler will yield execution — it makes it easier to understand
the behavior of a function at a glance without requiring a perfect memory for
what functions cause execution to yield. Full co-routine support is a nice
step to take and this is already similar enough that adding a keyword like
“yield” at this point may make it easier to evolve/plan the language into
having generalized co-routine support. It might even be useful to try and spec
out the co-routine support now and see how this specific use-case fits in with
that.
- Jon
_______________________________________________
bro-dev mailing list
bro-dev@bro.org
http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/bro-dev
