OT: on IDEs and code writing on steroids

Nick Sabalausky a at a.a
Thu May 21 23:08:07 PDT 2009

"Yigal Chripun" <yigal100 at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:gv5dpn$2oe9$1 at digitalmars.com...
> I think Nemerle provies this - the constructs in Nemerle for the Macro 
> system are very simple and intuitive. you only have one extra syntax 
> feature, the <[ ]>. think of D's CTFE only much more extended in scope - 
> you write a CTFE function and compile it. (that's the Nemerle Macro 
> equivalent) than you just call it in a different file and the compiler 
> will execute this function at compile time.
> Nemerle does not need an interpreter for this since these functions are 
> compiled just like the rest of the code. Nemerle also provides compiler 
> APIs so these functions could work on AST to add/alter/remove types and 
> other constructs.

As I recall, we got onto this subject from discussing ways to combine the 
power of D/C++-style templates with the cross-[assembly/object] benefits of 
C#-style generics. I understand what you're saying here about why nemerle's 
macro system is like a better form of D's CTFE. But I'm unclear on how 
nemerle's macro system relates to the problem of achieving the best of both 
worlds between D/C++-style templates and C#-style generics? 

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list