www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - New Macro Syntax Proposal

reply Davidl <Davidl 126.com> writes:
Obviously the one I posted yesterday is not easy for IDE to highlight  =

sub-language set
and also it lacks the power of parse different sub-language expressions.=
 I  =

think the
goal of macro should be powerful enough to introduce a new sub language.=
  =

Then the macro
itself could be called mature.
Consider the following

macro MyPowerfulMacro =3D CODEGEN //indicate the backend gen code output=
  =

string
{
KeyWordList(CASE_INSENSITIVE)	// this is for IDE highlight
//the design here doesn't pollute keyword we have now, KeyWordList,  =

Expression Backend all only take effect in macro expression
{
    object, TOKEN.object,
    end,    TOKEN.end,
}
Expression
{
    expdeclare ::=3D EXP.expdeclare(objid, objattr[])
	TOKEN.object {( TOKEN.identifier:objid TOKEN.identifier:~objattr  =

TOKEN.colon TOKEN.object)
		| (EXP.expdeclare:objexp)  } TOKEN.end
}

Backend EXP.expdeclare(objid, objattr[])
{
	CODEGEN ~=3D class "~objid.strinof)~"{;
	foreach(k;objattr)
	{
		CODEGEN ~=3D "class "~k.stringof~"{}"
	}
	CODEGEN ~=3D "}"
}

}
Apr 25 2007
parent reply Davidl <Davidl 126.com> writes:
and my idea is eventually get the compiler's associate array out not  =

built-in by using a
macro Language INI file instead. In the ini file, the macro is the  =

language feature.

 Obviously the one I posted yesterday is not easy for IDE to highlight =

 sub-language set
 and also it lacks the power of parse different sub-language expression=

 I think the
 goal of macro should be powerful enough to introduce a new sub languag=

 Then the macro
 itself could be called mature.
 Consider the following

 macro MyPowerfulMacro =3D CODEGEN //indicate the backend gen code outp=

 string
 {
 KeyWordList(CASE_INSENSITIVE)	// this is for IDE highlight
 //the design here doesn't pollute keyword we have now, KeyWordList,  =

 Expression Backend all only take effect in macro expression
 {
     object, TOKEN.object,
     end,    TOKEN.end,
 }
 Expression
 {
     expdeclare ::=3D EXP.expdeclare(objid, objattr[])
 	TOKEN.object {( TOKEN.identifier:objid TOKEN.identifier:~objattr  =

 TOKEN.colon TOKEN.object)
 		| (EXP.expdeclare:objexp)  } TOKEN.end
 }

 Backend EXP.expdeclare(objid, objattr[])
 {
 	CODEGEN ~=3D class "~objid.strinof)~"{;
 	foreach(k;objattr)
 	{
 		CODEGEN ~=3D "class "~k.stringof~"{}"
 	}
 	CODEGEN ~=3D "}"
 }

 }

Apr 25 2007
parent reply Dan <murpsoft hotmail.com> writes:
Unfortunate then that AA's aren't yet supported at compile time because they
use pointers to hash the values from the strings, and pointers aren't
established until runtime.

The syntax is also a bit rusty, but that's to be expected for a first proposal.
 My AST Reflection example was probably even weaker.

~~

Davidl Wrote:
 and my idea is eventually get the compiler's associate array out not  
 built-in by using a
 macro Language INI file instead. In the ini file, the macro is the  
 language feature.
 
 Obviously the one I posted yesterday is not easy for IDE to highlight  
 sub-language set
 and also it lacks the power of parse different sub-language expressions.  
 I think the
 goal of macro should be powerful enough to introduce a new sub language.  
 Then the macro
 itself could be called mature.
 Consider the following

 macro MyPowerfulMacro = CODEGEN //indicate the backend gen code output  
 string
 {
 KeyWordList(CASE_INSENSITIVE)	// this is for IDE highlight
 //the design here doesn't pollute keyword we have now, KeyWordList,  
 Expression Backend all only take effect in macro expression
 {
     object, TOKEN.object,
     end,    TOKEN.end,
 }
 Expression
 {
     expdeclare ::= EXP.expdeclare(objid, objattr[])
 	TOKEN.object {( TOKEN.identifier:objid TOKEN.identifier:~objattr  
 TOKEN.colon TOKEN.object)
 		| (EXP.expdeclare:objexp)  } TOKEN.end
 }

 Backend EXP.expdeclare(objid, objattr[])
 {
 	CODEGEN ~= class "~objid.strinof)~"{;
 	foreach(k;objattr)
 	{
 		CODEGEN ~= "class "~k.stringof~"{}"
 	}
 	CODEGEN ~= "}"
 }

 }


Apr 25 2007
parent reply Davidl <Davidl 126.com> writes:
I hope macro syntax could be discussed on the NG, and I hope the macro  =

syntax
would be designed well. There is no sound design at the moment. So I thi=
nk  =

this
is a crucial part of the language. And once macro is out, backward  =

compatibility
and other stuff would need to be considered. We need to do some psuedo  =

code on
the imagine macro syntax for a while then decide where to go. And I hope=
  =

the
community could help Walter a bit over this design

 Unfortunate then that AA's aren't yet supported at compile time becaus=

 they use pointers to hash the values from the strings, and pointers  =

 aren't established until runtime.

 The syntax is also a bit rusty, but that's to be expected for a first =

 proposal.  My AST Reflection example was probably even weaker.

 ~~

 Davidl Wrote:
 and my idea is eventually get the compiler's associate array out not
 built-in by using a
 macro Language INI file instead. In the ini file, the macro is the
 language feature.

 Obviously the one I posted yesterday is not easy for IDE to highlig=



 sub-language set
 and also it lacks the power of parse different sub-language  =



 expressions.
 I think the
 goal of macro should be powerful enough to introduce a new sub  =



 language.
 Then the macro
 itself could be called mature.
 Consider the following

 macro MyPowerfulMacro =3D CODEGEN //indicate the backend gen code o=



 string
 {
 KeyWordList(CASE_INSENSITIVE)	// this is for IDE highlight
 //the design here doesn't pollute keyword we have now, KeyWordList,=



 Expression Backend all only take effect in macro expression
 {
     object, TOKEN.object,
     end,    TOKEN.end,
 }
 Expression
 {
     expdeclare ::=3D EXP.expdeclare(objid, objattr[])
 	TOKEN.object {( TOKEN.identifier:objid TOKEN.identifier:~objattr
 TOKEN.colon TOKEN.object)
 		| (EXP.expdeclare:objexp)  } TOKEN.end
 }

 Backend EXP.expdeclare(objid, objattr[])
 {
 	CODEGEN ~=3D class "~objid.strinof)~"{;
 	foreach(k;objattr)
 	{
 		CODEGEN ~=3D "class "~k.stringof~"{}"
 	}
 	CODEGEN ~=3D "}"
 }

 }



Apr 26 2007
parent Dan <murpsoft hotmail.com> writes:
Accepting that macros are a subset of mixins, and are just syntactic sugar,
they should be as sugary as we can get 'em?


Davidl Wrote:
 I hope macro syntax could be discussed on the NG, and I hope the macro  
 syntax
 would be designed well. There is no sound design at the moment. So I think  
 this
 is a crucial part of the language. And once macro is out, backward  
 compatibility
 and other stuff would need to be considered. We need to do some psuedo  
 code on
 the imagine macro syntax for a while then decide where to go. And I hope  
 the
 community could help Walter a bit over this design
 
 Unfortunate then that AA's aren't yet supported at compile time because  
 they use pointers to hash the values from the strings, and pointers  
 aren't established until runtime.

 The syntax is also a bit rusty, but that's to be expected for a first  
 proposal.  My AST Reflection example was probably even weaker.

 ~~

 Davidl Wrote:
 and my idea is eventually get the compiler's associate array out not
 built-in by using a
 macro Language INI file instead. In the ini file, the macro is the
 language feature.

 Obviously the one I posted yesterday is not easy for IDE to highlight
 sub-language set
 and also it lacks the power of parse different sub-language  

 I think the
 goal of macro should be powerful enough to introduce a new sub  

 Then the macro
 itself could be called mature.
 Consider the following

 macro MyPowerfulMacro = CODEGEN //indicate the backend gen code output
 string
 {
 KeyWordList(CASE_INSENSITIVE)	// this is for IDE highlight
 //the design here doesn't pollute keyword we have now, KeyWordList,
 Expression Backend all only take effect in macro expression
 {
     object, TOKEN.object,
     end,    TOKEN.end,
 }
 Expression
 {
     expdeclare ::= EXP.expdeclare(objid, objattr[])
 	TOKEN.object {( TOKEN.identifier:objid TOKEN.identifier:~objattr
 TOKEN.colon TOKEN.object)
 		| (EXP.expdeclare:objexp)  } TOKEN.end
 }

 Backend EXP.expdeclare(objid, objattr[])
 {
 	CODEGEN ~= class "~objid.strinof)~"{;
 	foreach(k;objattr)
 	{
 		CODEGEN ~= "class "~k.stringof~"{}"
 	}
 	CODEGEN ~= "}"
 }

 }




Apr 26 2007