[<<][staapl][>>][..]
Thu Apr 30 14:56:51 CEST 2009

syntax signatures

now how to get the syntax out of the signature, back into a module
namespace?

you can't

it only makes sense inside a unit because it binds unit imports.  as a
consequence, .f files can never be modules since their most basic
syntax requires syntax transformers depending on the compiler
instantiation code.

as a result, each compiled .f file then needs to be linked with the
compiler to be able to produce code.

i'm still not convinced.. need to sleep on it..

anyways, apart from the "is it possible" thing here, it's probably
enough (and better) to have units only for .f files.

so next: create a unit in s-expr syntax.

ok.. i don't understand it.. maybe it was a bad idea to put the forth
syntax in a unit.  let's try to use macro defining macros.



[Reply][About]
[<<][staapl][>>][..]