Eric Niebler wrote:
> On 12/6/2010 4:50 PM, Thomas Heller wrote:
>> Eric Niebler wrote:
>>> I played with the let transform idea over the weekend. It *may* be
>>> possible to accomplish without the two problems I described above. See
>>> the attached let transform (needs latest Proto trunk). I'm also
>>> attaching the Renumber example, reworked to use let.
>> Without having looked at it too much ... this looks a lot like the
>> environment in phoenix. Maybe this helps in cleaning it out a bit.
> I tend to doubt it would help clean up the implementation of Phoenix
> environments. These features exist on different meta-levels: one
> (proto::let) is a feature for compiler-construction (Proto), the other
> (phoenix::let) is a language feature (Phoenix). The have roughly the
> same purpose within their purview, but as their purviews are separated
> by one great, big Meta, it's not clear that they have anything to do
> with each other.
*Dough* misunderstanding here. I didn't mean to clean up the phoenix scope
expressions with the help of proto::let. I was thinking, maybe proto::let
can borrow something from phoenix scopes on a conceptual level.
proto mailing list