I'm dabbling with Scheme interpreter and ultimately I would need
to declare the following types.
--
struct Function
{
Environment env;
Atom params;
Atom body_;
}
// An atom is either a string, a double, a symbol, a function or
a list of atoms
alias Atom =
On 27/09/2014 11:26 p.m., ponce wrote:
I'm dabbling with Scheme interpreter and ultimately I would need to
declare the following types.
--
struct Function
{
Environment env;
Atom params;
Atom body_;
}
// An atom is either a string, a double, a symbol, a function or
On Saturday, 27 September 2014 at 11:40:19 UTC, Rikki Cattermole
wrote:
How to get out of this trap?
Do I have to drop Algebraic and go back to manual tagged
unions?
Converting Function to a class. No where near ideal. But it'll
work.
It does work! Thanks.
Actually it's quite appropriate
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 11:26:31AM +, ponce via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
I'm dabbling with Scheme interpreter and ultimately I would need to
declare the following types.
--
struct Function
{
Environment env;
Atom params;
Atom body_;
}
// An atom is
On Saturday, 27 September 2014 at 11:26:33 UTC, ponce wrote:
I'm dabbling with Scheme interpreter and ultimately I would
need to declare the following types.
--
struct Function
{
Environment env;
Atom params;
Atom body_;
}
// An atom is either a string, a double, a
On Saturday, 27 September 2014 at 14:08:18 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-
What about using Atom*[] instead of Atom[]?
Atom[] seems simpler to me.
On Saturday, 27 September 2014 at 15:45:20 UTC, Meta wrote:
Also, you might want to use This* instead of This[], unless you
want an Atom to be able to contain a whole array of other atoms.
That's indeed what I want.
On Saturday, 27 September 2014 at 11:40:19 UTC, Rikki Cattermole
wrote:
These definitions can't work since Function and Atom need each
other in
this recursive definition.
How to get out of this trap?
Do I have to drop Algebraic and go back to manual tagged
unions?
Converting Function to a
