It is related to the way we work. The Boo Syntax allows this, and we only process the implicit base class after we parse the code, so that just works.
The magic of not having to do any nasty string manipulation :-) On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 10:49 PM, rg <[email protected]> wrote: > > what is it? magic? it's the syntax of boo or your code? > R > > On Apr 18, 9:36 pm, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> wrote: > > Rafal, > > Just use the standard import, it will just work. > > > > On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 9:20 PM, nightwatch77 <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi, I'm creating a typical DSL implementation with Rhino.DSL, based on > > > implicit base class compiler step. I'd like my DSL to support import > > > statements so I could reference additional namespaces, but with > > > implicit base class it's not that simple because during compilation my > > > code gets wrapped in a method. So I thought I could enhance the > > > compiler pipeline with some import resolver handling '@import' > > > statements placed at the beginning of my script. > > > Can you give me some hints on how to implement that - maybe some > > > example of custom compiler step for adding imports, or hints on how to > > > modify the AST? I'd be happy with script header like: > > > > > @import System.Data > > > @import System.Xml > > > > > <script body here> > > > > > Thx > > > Rafal > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Rhino Tools Dev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rhino-tools-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
