Re: [Pharo-dev] [squeak-dev] Re: [vwnc] Does anyone have a "new" string literal?

On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 2:17 AM, DavidLeibs wrote: > > > Were I to do anything in Smalltalk and the Compiler and Parser frameworks > still supported the #compilerClass and #parserClass invocations at the > right > place I know what I need to do to give myself a huge leg up

Re: [Pharo-dev] [squeak-dev] Re: [vwnc] Does anyone have a "new" string literal?

Hi Doru, I understand your argument and I have heard it for years as to the reason not to make a programming language as good as what we have known how to do since the 1970s. I really don't have a very big dog in this fight (meaning that I don't care all that much whether these features end up

Re: [Pharo-dev] [squeak-dev] Re: [vwnc] Does anyone have a "new" string literal?

Hi, Changing the syntax is an expensive thing because every syntactical construct introduces new constraints that can have deep implications in the multiple layers built on top. One reason why our tooling is so nimble is exactly that the AST of the language is so small. It is for this reason

Re: [Pharo-dev] [squeak-dev] Re: [vwnc] Does anyone have a "new" string literal?

Let me add some more motivation and background for the discussion. I responded to stephar...@free.fr questions by mail yesterday but it didn't wind up on the forum. Sorry about that. http://www.erights.org/elang/quasi/overview.html Provides very good background for quasi-liberals. I believe this

Re: [Pharo-dev] [squeak-dev] Re: [vwnc] Does anyone have a "new" string literal?

http://www.erights.org/elang/quasi/overview.html Provides very good background for quasi-liberals. As to macros I would posit that you have been using them in Smalltalk80 all along without the benefit of having the capability for yourself. There are a classic set of selectors that get special

Re: [Pharo-dev] [squeak-dev] Re: [vwnc] Does anyone have a "new" string literal?

On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 19:30:21 +0100, DavidLeibs wrote: As to the characters I did backquote for simple quasi-literal Strings and used Oxford Brackets for the quasi-literals with a language namespace. <| ...|>. Back quote can be hard to see but is nice for String

Re: [Pharo-dev] [squeak-dev] Re: [vwnc] Does anyone have a "new" string literal?

Hi David Where can we find - motivation - examples - implementation Did you write a report or something that we can read and assess? Tx I realize this is a few years old but I wanted to give an update on my quest for quasi-literals. I did a complete quasi-literal

Re: [Pharo-dev] [squeak-dev] Re: [vwnc] Does anyone have a "new" string literal?

Hi david What you describe is a bit scary. Because this is just changing the syntax but it is probably also breaking refactorings and probably other. May I ask why would we need macros since after more than 30 years nobody really need them. So do you have good motivating cases for

Re: [Pharo-dev] [squeak-dev] Re: [vwnc] Does anyone have a "new" string literal?

The ES6 design is sound and if you are in a hurry to get the capability it is a great way to go. Once you start using it and get a taste for quasi-literal little languages you will find that you want more. Having a quasi-literal that let's you name the little language to parse you open a very

Re: [Pharo-dev] [squeak-dev] Re: [vwnc] Does anyone have a "new" string literal?

Hi Hannes, On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 10:58 AM, H. Hirzel wrote: > On 2/27/17, DavidLeibs wrote: > > I realize this is a few years old but I wanted to give an update on my > > quest > > for quasi-literals. I did a complete quasi-literal framework

Re: [Pharo-dev] [squeak-dev] Re: [vwnc] Does anyone have a "new" string literal?

I realize this is a few years old but I wanted to give an update on my quest for quasi-literals. I did a complete quasi-literal framework for Java when I moved over to Oracle Labs. It used the annotation compiler + a few tweeks to the scanner and parser. You could extend the name space of the