|
6macros: discussing the finer points of Perl 6 macros, Qtrees, and how to stay sane | irclog: irclog.perlgeek.de/6macros/today Set by moderator on 28 July 2015. |
|||
|
02:30
cgfbee joined
02:47
ilbot3 joined
03:39
vendethiel joined
07:20
FROGGS joined
|
|||
| sergot | morning \\o | 09:38 | |
|
12:46
Ven joined
|
|||
| Ven | ahoy | 12:53 | |
|
16:48
cgfbee joined
17:52
pdcawley joined
19:02
pdcawley joined
19:16
vendethiel joined
19:54
FROGGS joined
|
|||
| masak | o hai | 19:55 | |
|
20:01
vendethiel joined
|
|||
| masak | hm. | 20:38 | |
| I'm getting some non-trivial chafing between the 007 level and the Perl 6 level. | |||
| not sure offhand how to solve this. | |||
| in Q::Term::Object.eval, we currently initialize a Val::Object, passing it some :properties | 20:39 | ||
| I'm trying to generalize that to initializing any type, including most of the Q types. | 20:40 | ||
| but Q types don't accept :properties like that. they currently have specialized .new methods with positional parameters. | |||
| "ah, good riddance", I thought, and started ripping them out. | 20:41 | ||
| vendethiel | *but then* | ||
| masak | but halfway through I realized that -- even if I change the places in the parser where these are used, which is no biggie -- all the AST tests depend on those positional constructors. | ||
| so, um | 20:42 | ||
| "why not both?", maybe | |||
| vendethiel | "why not zoidberg", one might propose | ||
| masak | :) | 20:43 | |
| thinking about it, I think the AST tests are the aberration here. | 20:45 | ||
| there should probably be small factory lambdas instead, mapping positionals to nameds. | 20:46 | ||
| masak tries out that refactor first | |||
| vendethiel | yeah, seems like a good solution | ||
| instead of the map key => type | |||
| masak | yeah | 20:47 | |
| 'night | 20:54 | ||
| vendethiel | g'night :) | 21:04 | |