[nem-en] Late Binding in Nemerle

[Snaury]

Huh?

(after testing) Hmm, I thought these lines:

            | _ =>
              def recurse_parm(parm)
                | SyntaxElement.Expression(expr) =>
                  SyntaxElement.Expression(recurse(expr))
                | _ => parm
              PExpr.MacroCall(loc, name, ns, parms.Map(recurse_parm))

Would do the job... waiting to see how you'll fix this, then. :)

On 7/21/06, Kamil Skalski <kamil.skalski at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok, I will commit it sometime tomorrow. I've also made some
> improvements to handle static methods and I'm plannig to support
> macros also:
>
> late
>   def x = foo.bar;
>   System.Console.WriteLine (x)
>   Nemerle.IO.print ("$x\n")   // print is a macro
>
> On 7/20/06, Snaury <snaury at gmail.com> wrote:
> > It's fine for me. :)
> >
> > However, with current implementation it seems one must avoid named
> > parameters for .NET classes (for ComObjects named parameters work fine
> > though [on MS.NET, never tested on Mono] and for MarshalByRefObjects I
> > just didn't test it). DefaultBinder in MS.NET has a horrible bug which
> > sometimes passes named parameters in wrong order, and Mono's
> > DefaultBinder doesn't currently support named parameters at all.
> >
> > Consider example:
> >
> > public class TestClass
> >   public Method(a : int, b : int, c : int = 3) : int
> >     printf("TestClass.Method(%d,%d,%d)\n", a, b, c)
> >     a + b + c
> >
> > def t = TestClass()
> > def o = t : object
> > def n = late o.Method(c = 1, a = 2, b = 3) :> int
> > printf("Got result: %d\n", n)
> >
> > On MS.NET:
> > TestClass.Method(3,1,2)
> > Got result: 6
> > On Mono:
> > TestClass.Method(1,2,3)
> > Got result: 6
> >
> > Both are wrong of course (but I must say that MS.NET doesn't *always*
> > get order wrong, if there are less that 3 named parameters they will
> > always be correct, btw). Not that I want to scare you, but I just want
> > to mention it before you put it to nemerle codebase (even though these
> > are *not* my bugs, but bugs of underlying implementations). To fix
> > this on both platforms I'd need to implement my own (correct) binder,
> > which is a huge work, will impact performance, and I'm still weighing
> > whether I want to code all of this or just wait when both parties fix
> > their binders...
> >
> > Anyway, you're welcome to include it. :) Just in case, because I don't
> > know what version you currently have, fresh version can be taked from
> > http://snaury.googlepages.com/Kitsu.Latebinding (old link just
> > redirects here, though)
> >
> > On 7/20/06, Kamil Skalski <kamil.skalski at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Well, I played a bit with the late binding macros and they work nice. :-)
> > > What do you thing about including them into Nemerle standard macros?
> > >
> > > For example under namespace Nemerle.Late;
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > https://nemerle.org/mailman/listinfo/devel-en
> >
>
>
> --
> Kamil Skalski
> http://nazgul.omega.pl
>
> _______________________________________________
> https://nemerle.org/mailman/listinfo/devel-en
>