Pragma syntax
Bert Freudenberg
bert at impara.de
Sun Aug 20 13:03:12 UTC 2006
Ha, I almost missed a syntax discussion while on vacation! Seems as
religious as always ;-)
Am 20.08.2006 um 14:17 schrieb Lukas Renggli:
> To summarize, these are basically two different views:
>
> (1) Pragmas as a syntax extension, where on can put almost anything
> between the angle brackets after an initial keyword selector defining
> the syntax.
Not quite - primitives and FFI calls are not pragmas, but all three
are syntactical extensions with possibly different rules.
Maybe this is just a difficulty in naming - you seem to call
everything inside angle brackets a "pragma".
Anyway, for sake of discussion I'll stay with your meaning.
> (2) Pragmas as a message send with literal arguments.
>
> I am for the simple and powerful. And this is (2) in my opinion.
Slightly paraphrasing Andrew's suggestion, how about this:
(3) "Pragmas" are method annotations parsed as literal array.
Under this definition, current FFI syntax is entirely legal (just
take an FFI declaration and replace <> with #()). Extension modules
can hook into the compiler to process those "pragmas".
As simple and even more powerful than (2), I'd argue.
This is not a final concept, agreed, but somehow it feels odd to
reduce everything to strings, as in your "unified" FFI pragma.
- Bert -
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|