Hi Josh -- Chapel currently has zero ways of writing macros and has no current intentions of supporting macros in the forseeable future. We do hope to make Chapel a community-governed language over time, and at that point (or even before then, as the team evolves), there's of course no way to predict how the language will evolve any more than there's any way to know how C++, Fortran, etc. will evolve other than hindsight.
AFAIK, you are not missing any rationales. Most of the ones that are in the spec are there to address things we wrestled with ourselves when defining the language and wanted to capture, or ones that address FAQs that come up time and again from readers. That's not to say that there couldn't/shouldn't be more, but this has not been identified as a reason that prospective users haven't been using the language so much as, say, performance, memory leaks, and features that don't work as well as we'd all like. -Brad On Thu, 14 Jan 2016, Joshua Olson wrote: > I'm still considering whether to use Nim or Chapel to port OpenVDB, and > while Nim has what I think are too many similar ways to write macros (even > its templates are supposedly term rewriting macros), I can't be sure Chapel > won't go that route. I appreciate the rationales sprinkled in the spec. > Where are the other rationales? > > Thanks, > Josh > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=267308311&iu=/4140 _______________________________________________ Chapel-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/chapel-developers
