You guys do have some interesting tricks in your back pockets :)
Steve Wampler wrote:
>
> Dave Gudeman wrote:
> >
...
> I had forgotten aobut c-expressions! Thanks for reminding me. The
> behavior of c-expressions is very close to being a superior replacement
> for co-expressions (a few programs might break, but I bet it would be
> surprisingly few...)
>
> I think Dave is right - this would be (have been?) a nice language feature,
> especially if implemented as he suggests (if I had thought of it, I
> probably would have implemented co-expressions that way to begin with).
> Replacing co-expressions with c-expressions would likely be a net win, but I
> suspect is more of a change than anyone is willing to do at this time...
>
> I imagine c-expressions come *very close* to matching what David Gamely
> is interested in.
>
Seems very close indeed.
Some of the points about co-expression optimization are also well
taken. The tendency to drag in the entire local environment was
one of my heaviness concerns. (Is this still how it's
implemented). I recall writing procedures just to return a
coexpression -- a lot heavier than just using create.
Dave's suggestions about parameterizing c-expressions and using
leveraging on the object oriented features were interesting too.
David Gamey
_______________________________________________
Unicon-group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/unicon-group
