On Monday, 15 July 2013 at 17:08:48 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 07/15/2013 08:05 AM, Tofu Ninja wrote:
> We should be as flexible as possible and leave the decision
up to the
> programmer. We shouldn't restrict a feature based on a
fictional idea of
> purity or vague worry of feature bloat(as others have
mentioned)
My worry is not vague at all. What stops one from adding
emailing ability to the compiler then? That would be immensely
useful too becaues the compiler could email me. (!) Where is
the line?
A compiler is a tool that compiles source code in a preset
environment. Simple is better.
> especially in a case like this where the implementation is
fairly simple
> and the use cases are immense.
The use cases are not immense compared to the current
situation. There are lots of free tools that can set the
environment for compilation and the compiler compiles.
Ali
The use cases I am more interested in are not possible with make.
Having the ability to pass the arguments from within the language
itself allows you to define your use cases inline instead of
having to separately define the use case outside. Something where
you would have many different points in the code that needed
different input from what ever executable you were calling. With
out ctec you would have to maintain a list of every time you
needed something generated from the outside and add that to your
make which is error prone. I think it is in these cases where the
ctec would be the most useful as it would remove a lot of the
burden of keeping track of all the pregenerated code.
