Carl Mäsak comments

Results 649 comments of


                                            Carl Mäsak

Implement infix:<^^> (in a module)

I kind of glossed over the fact that in order for this to work, we kind of need a new `"list"` associativity, too. But yeah, we do. The other logical...

Implement infix:<^^> (in a module)

This, by the way, is a delightful core module to have early, because it's not waiting on `is parsed`. Just blocking on modules and imports in general.

Implement infix:<^^> (in a module)

...and varargs, aka slurpy parameters (#259).

Implement infix:<^^> (in a module)

...and list associativity.

Have a way to talk about lvalues in macros that need them

As I come back to this idea only a few days later, I'm not immediately sure what an "assignment protocol" such as `.assign` and `.modify` gives us over just writing:...

Have a way to talk about lvalues in macros that need them

Oh! > Or maybe I'm missing some big advantage that I used to see? I notice that I am confused. Yes, the assignment protocol is needed. And no, it wasn't...

Have a way to talk about lvalues in macros that need them

Yes, `setf` seems quite similar in spirit to what we need here for 007. Even more so after I read your comment, @vendethiel.

Have a way to talk about lvalues in macros that need them

> Anyway, the reason I decided to have `lvalue(expr)` act at macro time is that it limits somewhat the amount of crazy you can do with this API (which is...

Have a way to talk about lvalues in macros that need them

I'm really eager to see this one happen, but I'm also filled with a certain unease. My driving question is "What code gets generated for this to work?" That is,...

Have a way to talk about lvalues in macros that need them

Oh! Wait! Postulate a built-in macro `solidify` (name _very_ negotiable, but the analogy here of the code going from not-solid (as in risky) to solid, is pretty apt, I think)....