Re: Proposed new preprocessor usage scheme for 4.0
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Jan 30, 2011
- 1399 views
Which was exactly what I was referring to. The 'file extension' idea is both a useful and a useless idea - depending on what you are trying to achieve. It is useful when a complete file has been written in the 'pre-processor' (domain specific language) code but not so useful when you are 'cherry-picking' pre-processor functionality.
Which is why I recommended dot4. Of course, this doesn't address the original problem that prompted this thread...
The swap concept could be implemented with either a text macro sub-language or an AST macro sub-language ... or as a native built-in operator.
The only example I've worked with is C's preprocessor (as key C features such as include/header files and text macros are implemented in the preprocessor) and M4, but using one in Euphoria feels too much like the "tack on another preprocessor" option.
