• Davidl (1/1) Apr 17 2007 i think there wouldn't be much effort to make it ?
• Daniel Keep (17/18) Apr 17 2007 I think what would be better was a compile-time context object that told
• Dan (4/9) Apr 17 2007 In that light, please wait for Walter to release the AST reflection feat...

Davidl <Davidl 126.com> writes:

i think there wouldn't be much effort to make it ?

Daniel Keep <daniel.keep.lists gmail.com> writes:

Davidl wrote:
 i think there wouldn't be much effort to make it ?

I think what would be better was a compile-time context object that told
us what scope we were at (module, function, class, etc.), what the
current enclosing symbol is called, what kind of symbol it is, what its
arguments/base types are, etc., and a reference to the enclosing context
as well.

I mean, if we're going to do this, we may as well do it properly :)

	-- Daniel

-- 
int getRandomNumber()
{
    return 4; // chosen by fair dice roll.
              // guaranteed to be random.
}

http://xkcd.com/

v2sw5+8Yhw5ln4+5pr6OFPma8u6+7Lw4Tm6+7l6+7D
i28a2Xs3MSr2e4/6+7t4TNSMb6HTOp5en5g6RAHCP  http://hackerkey.com/

Dan <murpsoft hotmail.com> writes:

Daniel Keep Wrote:
 I think what would be better was a compile-time context object that told
 us what scope we were at (module, function, class, etc.), what the
 current enclosing symbol is called, what kind of symbol it is, what its
 arguments/base types are, etc., and a reference to the enclosing context
 as well.

In that light, please wait for Walter to release the AST reflection feature, as
it ought to include such functionality and will also come with a reasonable API
with which to access such things.

Many many things are building up that want the AST reflection feature, Walter. 
: )

Any chance I could contribute some time on it?