> In the adding-macros-to-the-AST problem that keeps coming up: Does the > 'unrelated' code generally run pre-macroexpansion, or post-? > > If the answer is 'post-macroexpansion', there may be an argument to be > made for splitting the AST types apart? > It is after macro expansion. However, the two AST types would be really similar to each other; you'd want to generate one from the other using macros. In fact, I attempted to do this the summer before last, but ran out of time. (It wasn't a complete waste: it helped exercise and debug the macro system.) It *might* be more practical to do it now that the macro system has improved, but it's still no small project, and I wouldn't blame anyone for vetoing making such a large change to the Rust AST out of a generally precautionary attitude.
Paul > > Glenn > > On Mar 4, 2013, at 9:17 AM, Paul Stansifer wrote: > > > I'm afraid it's not primarily a parsing issue; it has to do with the > Rust implementation, in particular that the same AST type holds > pre-expanded code (potentially containing macro invocations) and > post-expanded code (in which macro invocations must not be present). > Changing the identifier type to be > either-an-identifier-or-a-macro-invocation-producing-an-identifier would > affect way too much unrelated code. There are a number of ways around the > problem, but we need to decide which one to do. > > > > Paul > > !DSPAM:5134d6db129152042218820! > _______________________________________________ > > Rust-dev mailing list > > Rust-dev@mozilla.org > > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev > > > > > > !DSPAM:5134d6db129152042218820! > >
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
