[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: I think binary-branch is almost ready for play time
From: |
Alexandre Oliva |
Subject: |
Re: I think binary-branch is almost ready for play time |
Date: |
13 May 2001 20:55:46 -0300 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.090002 (Oort Gnus v0.02) XEmacs/21.1 (Cuyahoga Valley) |
On May 13, 2001, Bruce Korb <address@hidden> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Indeed, it does. I'm close to being convinced. The final test is
>> going to be this: I'd like to implement test-and-exit in terms of a
>> new macro, namely, test, that takes arguments such as the test to be
>> performed, the if clause and the else clause.
> OK. Just so you know, if you pass a named argument "mumble"
> to macro "foo" and that macro invokes another named, "bar",
> the "bar" macro has access to "mumble" unless "foo" creates
> another definition context for it in its argument list for "bar".
> In other words, your new macro should not need to do this:
> [= test-and-exit test = (get "test") ... =]
> because it would be redundant.
Good. But I had meant to write ``I'd like *you* to implement ...''
:-)
I'm not even sure I'd know how to start implementing one macro in
terms of another. I recall your having stated this was impossible in
earlier versions of AutoGen; I'm very happy this is now possible.
>> I must confess that I dislike AutoGen's syntax, heavily loaded with [=
>> and =], but I'm sure it's just a matter of getting used to it.
> So, you don't like [+ and +] either? ;-)
Yep. And I recall having disliked [ and ] when I started with
autoconf. And I still haven't got over Pascal's `begin' and `end' :-)
> I use [= and =] a lot because they are close together and don't
> require holding the shift key. :-)
Good point :-)
>> Named arguments in macro invocations are sometimes a nuisance,
>> but they can also be a plus.
> I find them convenient. I always prefer typing to lack of clarity.
> It also makes the calling sequence extensible and flexible.
> I like that, too.
Yep. I guess it's just a matter of my getting use to it. I'm happy
you're giving me good reasons to learn more about AutoGen :-)
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer address@hidden, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp address@hidden, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me
- I think binary-branch is almost ready for play time, Bruce Korb, 2001/05/12
- Re: I think binary-branch is almost ready for play time, Alexandre Oliva, 2001/05/12
- Re: I think binary-branch is almost ready for play time, Bruce Korb, 2001/05/12
- Re: I think binary-branch is almost ready for play time, Alexandre Oliva, 2001/05/12
- Re: I think binary-branch is almost ready for play time, Alexandre Oliva, 2001/05/12
- Re: I think binary-branch is almost ready for play time, Bruce Korb, 2001/05/12
- Re: I think binary-branch is almost ready for play time, Alexandre Oliva, 2001/05/12
- Message not available
- Re: I think binary-branch is almost ready for play time, Alexandre Oliva, 2001/05/13
- Re: I think binary-branch is almost ready for play time, Bruce Korb, 2001/05/13
- Re: I think binary-branch is almost ready for play time,
Alexandre Oliva <=
- Re: I think binary-branch is almost ready for play time, Bruce Korb, 2001/05/13
- Re: I think binary-branch is almost ready for play time, Alexandre Oliva, 2001/05/13
- Re: I think binary-branch is almost ready for play time, Gary V . Vaughan, 2001/05/14
- Re: I think binary-branch is almost ready for play time, Bruce Korb, 2001/05/14
- Re: I think binary-branch is almost ready for play time, Gary V . Vaughan, 2001/05/15
Re: I think binary-branch is almost ready for play time, Gary V . Vaughan, 2001/05/14