downs, el 30 de julio a las 22:31 me escribiste: > To clarify for a few criticisms that have come up in IRC: this is meant as a > rule of thumb to fall back on where no other considerations are present. > > For instance, const and shared are type constructors, and as such hard to do > in the standard library. > > To my knowledge, assert() for instance has no such mitigating considerations.
I like the idea of moving as much as possible to library code, but for the sake of simplicity, I think most of the stuff moved should be "built-in", like Object, ClassInfo, etc. You shouldn't import anything to use assert() if you want to promote it's use, like I said with tuples (I think even references, dynamic arrays and associative arrays should live in the library, even when they have specialized syntax). This could make implementing a new compiler way simpler if you have an standard library/runtime available. And you have the extra advantage of being able to change the implementation of core constructs without touching the compiler. -- Leandro Lucarella (luca) | Blog colectivo: http://www.mazziblog.com.ar/blog/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sometimes I think the sure sign that life exists elsewhere in the universe Is that that none of them tried to contact us
