I'm not sure how that makes linting impossible.
On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 11:56 PM, Jameson Nash <[email protected]> wrote:
> It would be probably be lasting, because most Exprs would no longer want
> to have an args field with a Vector{Any}
>
>
> On Saturday, September 13, 2014, Stefan Karpinski <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Surely not in any lasting sense? With a.b syntax overloading we could
>> actually make the transition pretty smooth.
>>
>> On Sep 13, 2014, at 4:47 PM, Tony Fong <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> That'd be bad news for Lint...
>>
>> On Saturday, September 13, 2014 3:22:04 PM UTC+7, Stefan Karpinski wrote:
>>>
>>> We've actually discussed changing our expression representation to use
>>> types instead of the more lisp-like symbols for distinguishing expression
>>> types. That would allow dispatch on expression types and be more compact.
>>> It would, however, break almost all macros that do any kind of expression
>>> inspection.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 2:48 AM, Gray Calhoun <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:50:44 AM UTC-5, Steven G. Johnson
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 12:20:59 PM UTC-4, Gray Calhoun
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are there better ways to do this in general?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For this kind of expression-matching code, you may find the Match.jl
>>>>> package handy (https://github.com/kmsquire/Match.jl), to get ML- or
>>>>> Scala-like symbolic pattern-matching.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, that's pretty cool. For simple cases like I'm using, do you
>>>> know if there are advantages (or disadvantages) to using Match.jl, or
>>>> should I just view it as a nicer syntax? (Obviously, when things get more
>>>> complicated Match.jl looks very appealing).
>>>>
>>>
>>>
