[erlang-questions] My biggest beef with Erlang
Sun Nov 25 17:57:40 CET 2007
I think it would be easier to allow syntax transforms *before*
parse_transform. We need
character_transform that kicks in before tokenisation, and
token_transform which kicks in after character_transform but before
On Nov 25, 2007 2:48 PM, Thomas Lindgren <thomasl_erlang@REDACTED> wrote:
> --- Joel Reymont <joelr1@REDACTED> wrote:
> > On Nov 25, 2007, at 3:12 AM, Robin Bhattacharyya
> > wrote:
> > > Smerl manipulates erlang at the abstract form, so
> > smerl is kinda like
> > > a lisp macro. A lispy erlang would make erlang
> > easier to manipulate.
> > My biggest beef with Erlang is that even with parse
> > transforms I
> > cannot make a !! b stand for funcall(a, b). If the
> > Erlang
> > implementation removed this restriction then surely
> > all sorts of
> > creative uses would be enabled.
> In other words, you want user-defined infix operators.
> The easy way, Haskell-style, took a couple of hours to
> implement a few years ago (recipe: modify lexer to
> recognize infix-op tokens, then add an extra rule to
> parser to handle them), but got bogged down in the
> usual bureaucracy and kibbitzing. So this time, first
> write an EEP and you're set to go.
> The hard way would be something like ML or Prolog full
> infix syntax (and prefix, postfix, and different
> associativities for Prolog). I think that can safely
> be left for later.
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
> erlang-questions mailing list
More information about the erlang-questions