On Monday 07 November 2005 19:40, Stef Mientki wrote:
>
> hello Marco, Javi,
>
> As a non-C-programmer, I cann't understand the full extend /
> consequences of this C-isch macro implementation,
> but here a few remarks:
>
> 1. Macro's can never extend or change the real functionality /
> performance of the compiler. This would imply that a macro-machine
> should always or best be implemented as a pre-processor.

I agree, but while on unix-like systems a pre-processor is (almost) always
present, on other systems (windows), it is not. I'm not interested in windows
personally, but someone else could be, and maybe they don't want to install a
third-party program.

>
> 2. As I showed in JALcc, it's very well possible to create a
> pre-processor which is capable of perfoming complex macro actions, while
> still holding 100% compatibility with "standard JAL", see
> http://oase.uci.kun.nl/~mientki/pic/jalcc/help/jalcc_macro.html
> <http://oase.uci.kun.nl/%7Emientki/pic/jalcc/help/jalcc_macro.html>
> If you look at the block "Inline Macro,IO-pin, about the end of the
> first page, you can see how this is implemented.

my extension to JAL is 100% compatible with "standard JAL" too, but the
problem is the other way round: code that uses macros is not understood by
plain JAL.

I've a couple of ideas regarding direct implementation of macros in JAL, I'll
see in the next few days if they are viable.

Cheers,
Marco

--
Marco Pantaleoni

elastiC language developer
http://www.elasticworld.org