Re: mixing lush with clush

> I was suggesting DXs\DYs instead of DHs because they are simple
> enough so that I can understand them. The "type-info extensions"
> that I was dreaming of would probably reproduce much of what's
> in the DH/DHDOC machinery today minus some fancy stuff for escape
> analysis and what not. But again the DH stuff is very complicated
> and it might be easier to start from scratch.
>
> Another thing that I think is wrong with the DH compiler is the
> way the compilable functions are currently coded (you find them
> compiler/dh-macro). It's unreadable, hard to maintain code.

The DH themselves aren't too bad, but writing a compiler macro
for an existing DX/DY function is more complicated than it should.

The main advantage of the DX/DY/compiler macro way is that
they can handle polymorphism, while DHs can't do that at 
the moment.

  -- Yann



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language
that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast
and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642