|
From: | Ralf Hemmecke |
Subject: | Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: SPAD and Aldor again |
Date: | Tue, 21 Nov 2006 22:14:39 +0100 |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (X11/20061025) |
Rep and Per are good for many things, but it might be worth adding a shorthand for 'my representation is just a record'. Don't think of Rep as an instance variable - it's a mapping between your type and an underlying one. That said, a default representation of Rep + Record might be an interesting idea.
Peter, perhaps you know ... The only thing that makes "Rep", "rep", and "per" special is: macro { rep x == ((x)@%) pretend Rep; per r == ((r)@Rep) pretend %; } from include/aldor.as. Now let us assume that everywhere in the libaldor sources we would replace Rep <--- Foo rep <--- bar per <--- rabI guess the compiler would still accept the code and even produces an identical library (up to name changes and hash codes etc).
Or does the compiler know about a special treatment of "Rep" (in contrast to "Foo")?
Going a bit further... is % known to the compiler? Or could I also replace that (above and in everywhere.as file) by something else like "Bar", for example?
I'm really curious. Thanks in advance Ralf
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |