[nem-en] Late Binding in Nemerle
Snaury
snaury at gmail.com
Mon Jul 3 11:02:49 CEST 2006
Well, it *is* possible, however, imagine you want to do:
late(o).SomeFunc(late(o).Prop1, late(o).Prop2)
If we translate it to this style of macro, it will be:
late {
o.SomeFunc(o.Prop1, o.Prop2)
}
So far so good, we good scan inner levels as well (it's complicated
though). Now something harder:
late {
o.SomeFunc(p.Prop1, p.Prop2)
}
How to determine if you want late(p).Prop1 or p.Prop1 here? Actually,
I now have an idea to rewrite macro so that it would be easier:
late o.foo().bar
late o.SomeFunc(late o.Prop1, late o.Prop2)
late give_me_o().foo()
late (give_me_a().give_me_o()).foo()
and the like.
On 7/3/06, Kamil Skalski <kamil.skalski at gmail.com> wrote:
> I would rather stay with macro like
> late {
> obj.foo ().bar
> }
>
> and not touch type system.
>
> 2006/7/3, Snaury <snaury at gmail.com>:
> > VB.NET does it by forwarding all unresolved calls on object to their
> > static method on LateBinding class (in Microsoft.VisualBasic
> > assembly), which does a lot of magic, has their own binder (which
> > seems to allow constructs like o.Property[a, b] to decide if Property
> > is direct indexer or something returning object that further needs
> > calling default indexer, and which seems to check and make sure that
> > positional parameters are always positional, unlike just "unnamed" as
> > they are in my macro).
> >
> > Boo does it by having a specialized subimplementation of their
> > ExternalType which somewhat like marks object as being duck type (and
> > it then further processed). I think for Nemerle it is also possible,
> > but I don't completely grok compiler to understand where it should be
> > done. First thing seems like adding MType.Duck, but where it should be
> > processed and all the rest - I don't yet know...
> >
> > I did it as a macro because a) it was simpler b) didn't want to call
> > religious wrath ("he touched our compiler with his dirty hands!") if
> > idea would be disliked. :)
> >
> > On 7/3/06, Alejandro Serrano <trupill at yahoo.es> wrote:
> > > Maybe we could see how the Microsoft VB.NET compiler implements late
> > > binding (mostly using Reflection at run-time) or also take some ideas
> > > from Boo, so we could have something like:
> > >
> > > late
> > > {
> > > def n = SomeActiveXControl ();
> > > n.Method ();
> > > }
> > >
> > > or maybe
> > >
> > > def n : duck = SomeActiveXControl ();
> > > n.Method () <- every call in a 'duck' type would use late binding
> > >
> > > Kamil Skalski escribió:
> > > > Generating such proxy classes should be relatively easy using a macro.
> > > > def x = dynamic_implement (obj, IFoo, IBar, IWazz);
> > > > x.foo();
> > > > x.bar();
> > > >
> > > > would be quite nice. :)
> > > >
> > > > dynamic_implement would generate a class implementing IFoo, IBar,
> > > > IWazz (maybe doing some caching to avoid generating the same proxy
> > > > classes several times) and create its instance.
> > > >
> > > > 2006/7/2, Arthur Peters <amp at singingwizard.org>:
> > > >> This is quite cool. I've been a Python programmer in the past so the
> > > >> ability to do duck typing when needed could be really nice.
> > > >>
> > > >> I ran across a page about duck typing in Java. It provides a class that
> > > >> can take an object and return a proxy object that implements an
> > > >> interface you give even if the original object did not.
> > > >> ( http://www.coconut-palm-software.com/the_visual_editor/?p=25 )
> > > >>
> > > >> This seems like it could be nice in addition to your macro, because it
> > > >> would allow you to pass the proxy into places that don't know about the
> > > >> whole duck typing thing. Also it provides a middle ground: You can
> > > >> access functions based on only name and signature and you have the type
> > > >> safety provided by a defined interface.
> > > >>
> > > >> I think it would be possible in .NET, but it looks complicated because
> > > >> you would need to generate IL opcodes to create the proxy.
> > > >>
> > > >> If people think this would be useful I will take a crack at implementing
> > > >> it.
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks for the good work, everyone!
> > > >> -Arthur
> > > >>
> > > >> On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 18:33 +0400, Snaury wrote:
> > > >> > Hi everyone,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I was trying to grok nemerle's macros for some time when an idea
> > > >> > suddenly popped in my mind how I could do late binding aka dynamic
> > > >> > typing aka duck typing in a pretty simple and (maybe?) rich way. So I
> > > >> > wrote a macro for this, source code here:
> > > >> > http://www.furry.ru/kitsu/nemerle/Kitsu.LateBindingMacro.n.txt
> > > >> >
> > > >> > It allows to use late binding on (I think) any expression, you just
> > > >> > have to wrap it with late, and use like this:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > late(expr).CallMe(param1, param2, param3).CallOtherMe(param, param,
> > > >> > param).Property[param, param, param] = value
> > > >> >
> > > >> > It also supports ref/out and named parameters:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > late(expr).CallMe(namedparameter = ref variable, out variable, and
> > > >> > the like...)
> > > >> >
> > > >> > though one needs to be very careful with named parameters, because
> > > >> > when you name a parameter, other (unnamed) parameters might get
> > > >> > shifted, for example in function:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > public void SomeFunc(a : int, b : int) : void
> > > >> >
> > > >> > when you use
> > > >> >
> > > >> > late(obj).SomeFunc(v1, a = v2)
> > > >> >
> > > >> > SomeFunc will be called as SomeFunc(v2, v1), i.e. it won't produce any
> > > >> > errors, it would just silently accept it.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Also, there's not much error checking there (and to be honest I don't
> > > >> > even know how I can do more error checking from within a macro), and
> > > >> > if something goes wrong, you'll probably won't even know where exactly
> > > >> > error happend, none the less I was extremely amazed at WHAT I could do
> > > >> > with Nemerle's macro syntax so I though I'd share it with other people
> > > >> > like me, who might really need to use late binding in their programs.
> > > >> > =^_^=
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Now I can say it even more: Nemerle Rocks!
> > > >> >
> > > >> > P.S.
> > > >> > If someone can help me to improve it, help in form of patches would be
> > > >> > greatly appreciated :)
> > > >> >
> > > >> > P.P.S.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > When I was searching the net on any info about duck typing in Nemerle
> > > >> > I occasionaly found this particular statement:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > http://nemerle.org/irc/nemerle-2006-01-09
> > > >> > 13:50 <malekith> the main differences between boo and nemerle is that
> > > >> > we do not allow dynamic typing to sneak at without notice, we have
> > > >> > better support for metaprogramming (quotations) and compiler written
> > > >> > in Nemerle (booc is in C#)
> > > >> >
> > > >> > After reading it I'm even a little scared if my idea of dynamic typing
> > > >> > would be met with knifes and banished like something evil. All I'm
> > > >> > trying to do is to give power when one needs it, especially when one
> > > >> > *really* needs it. x_x
> > > >> >
> > > >> > _______________________________________________
> > > >> > https://nemerle.org/mailman/listinfo/devel-en
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> https://nemerle.org/mailman/listinfo/devel-en
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ______________________________________________
> > > LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo.
> > > Llamadas a fijos y m�viles desde 1 c�ntimo por minuto.
> > > http://es.voice.yahoo.com
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > https://nemerle.org/mailman/listinfo/devel-en
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > https://nemerle.org/mailman/listinfo/devel-en
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Kamil Skalski
> http://nazgul.omega.pl
>
> _______________________________________________
> https://nemerle.org/mailman/listinfo/devel-en
>
>
>
More information about the devel-en
mailing list