On 29/01/06, Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Basically the plan is that when an internal AST language is decided
> upon, the macros will be able to get either the source code text, or
> an AST.
Two things. First, if the AST path is taken, doesn't that mean that
the AST representation has to be compatible between implementations
(assuming there'll be more than one)? Secondly, there's ease of use.
ASTs are, at least from what I've seen, pretty verbose. Aren't we
trying to make things easy for the programmer? With source text, doing
manipulations by hand can be a bother, so that's no solution either...

Maybe I'm spoiled by the idea of s-expressions, though. But I get the
impression that lispy macros are where the idea comes from...
Schwäche zeigen heißt verlieren;
härte heißt regieren.
  - "Glas und Tränen", Megaherz

Reply via email to