Re: Re: source-to-source translators

Hi Eric,

Eric M. Hopper wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 09:00 -0400, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> 
>>Yes ! I think this has to be an iterative process. In the end, I'd like
>>to see a domain-specific language that operates mostly with declarations
>>(constraint -> transformation), but before condensing the language I'm sure
>>some conventional imperative steps are required. Therefor, I think that
>>python is an ideal playground.
> 
> 
> I think one of the more fruitful places to go look for ideas is the C++
> template language.

Can you be a bit more specific about what kind of 'ideas' to draw from
that ?

> I've grown very fond of the things it allows you to
> express, even though the syntax is awkward and ugly.  I'd very much like
> to see a new (statically typed, compiled, non-garbage collected, object-
> oriented, allowing object instances on the stack) language that took the
> ideas from there and built a cleaner, better designed language around
> them.

We seem to be talking about two different languages now. You are referring
to the programming language itself, while I'm talking about a language to
express code transformations with, i.e. 'meta-programming'.

Whether it would be a good idea to change the C++ language itself is beyond
the scope of the current discussion (and this project in general).

But I agree in general that how to constrain a 'rule' to specific types would
be an interesting aspect of such a language.

Regards,
		Stefan