[nem-en] Re: Late Binding in Nemerle

[Snaury]

On 7/4/06, Kamil Skalski <kamil.skalski at gmail.com> wrote:
> I want it for the whole part of code and if I don't I just
> use proper () to separate  the expressions.

Actually not! That's what I wanted it to be too! But unfortunately
parentheses don't leave even a *slightest* trace in PExpr, everything
up until ; or , is eaten and given for late macro. :(((

That's why I had to strip : and :> operators first, then I suddenly
found that other operators are given as a call, and like that. If
someone can write a better syntax, I'm open to suggestions, but I just
don't want to make it a complete mess, where late is applied to not
where you expect (to me it is better if late is not applied in
questinable situations)

Currently there's actually another problem, if you write late(expr +
expr), it as if you didn't have these parentheses. I guess I should
return parentheses syntax, but only as late(late-expr) without
anything after closing parenthese...

> Especially the
> late-expr <op> expr...
>
> rule is suprising for me... why left side, not right? ;)

Because usually it is written as late expr + expr. I wanted "weight"
of late be as little as possible, so late is applied only to the left
side and not to the right.