On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Tofu Ninja <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > > Instead of debating forever we should implement it and make a pull request for it. People can test it individually and see whether it creates havoc or enables interesting scenarios. Then we can decide after some time.
