FFIPragma experiment
Andreas Raab
andreas.raab at gmx.de
Sun Aug 20 09:54:46 UTC 2006
Lukas Renggli wrote:
>> Let's forget the syntax for a second since it ain't going to change.
>
> Amen, my god.
Getting personal now, are we? Anyway, since you haven't brought up any
new arguments I don't see any reason to change my position. In fact, I'm
still awaiting your response to these messages:
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2006-August/107204.html
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2006-August/107243.html
Unfortunately, it does appear as if your only goal is indeed to change
the FFI syntax, but like I said this isn't going to happen without a
real benefit for the FFI users. Get used to it.
>> How
>> exactly would that work? Do you intend to make #primitive: work properly
>> or something else? My main reason for asking is that I tried to use
>> "self primitive: 120" in the FFI declaration but it didn't work.
>
> Yes, that's because it is not implemented the way I proposed yet.
> Right now everything is hardocded, patched, hacked, ... as it was
> before introducing the pragmas.
I don't understand this. Weren't you the guy who said how "clean and
extensible" this all is now? In any case, I was asking for how an
extension would register itself as a non-pragma primitive. If you were
planning on making Parser>>primitive: work properly this could be done
without affecting anything else and would certainly go a long ways to
simplify extension parsing (FFI or otherwise).
Cheers,
- Andreas
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|