The style reminds me of some J implementations! #define DO(n,x) {I i=0,_n=(n);for(;i http://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Essays/Incunabulum
The worst part of that macro is that it is inherently unhygienic: it leaks the variable name 'i' up the scope
Cello – A library that brings higher level programming to C
141–150 of 158 posts
Re: Cello – A library that brings higher level programming to C
#142The style reminds me of some J implementations! #define DO(n,x) {I i=0,_n=(n);for(;i http://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Essays/Incunabulum
The worst part of that macro is that it is inherently unhygienic: it leaks the variable name 'i' up the scope
Re: Cello – A library that brings higher level programming to C
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
Presumably, people who wanted to talk about Cello in this thread, not Rust, and are having the signal-to-noise ratio reduced by this derailing.
There's literally not a single comment in this thread comparing C to Rust, and yet Rust fanatics are the ones derailing here? Care to elaborate, my good friend?
No idea where the GP got 'rust' from this is about Iron. You know.
Re: Cello – A library that brings higher level programming to C
#144The style reminds me of some J implementations! #define DO(n,x) {I i=0,_n=(n);for(;i http://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Essays/Incunabulum
The worst part of that macro is that it is inherently unhygienic: it leaks the variable name 'i' up the scope
Presumably there is a #define I int floating around somewhere so that need not be the case (note the capital I inside the curly brace).
Re: Cello – A library that brings higher level programming to C
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're being pedantic about reserved words?
I had that same problem. I wrote a C library [1] that has a structure field named "class". It's "class" because the protocol being described (DNS) calls that particular field "class" [2]. And I'm not about to pay lip service to an abomination like C++ [3][4]. [1] https://github.com/spc476/SPCDNS [2] https://github.com/spc476/SPCDNS/blob/ca5052c3d0c3252071a18e... [3] I am NOT a fan of C++. [4] But I had to anyway, but…
Yeah I super hate this. There's no other language that requires other languages to contort themselves like C++ does. Every time I see `#ifdef __cplusplus` or `klass` my blood pressure spikes.
Re: Cello – A library that brings higher level programming to C
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd remove the “faux”. Cello is dynamically typed.
Then you could say that just using void-pointers in C that C is also dynamically typed.
Not void pointers per se, but if you use runtime information to determine how to interpret the data pointed by a void pointer, that's dynamic typing, yes.
Re: Cello – A library that brings higher level programming to C
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd remove the “faux”. Cello is dynamically typed.
Then you could say that just using void-pointers in C that C is also dynamically typed.
In C you would only use void pointers very occasionally, to work around the lack of generics/templates in data structures. Most of the time, objects have types. In Cello, everything is a void pointer. Limited as it is, compiler type checking in C is still valuable.
Re: Cello – A library that brings higher level programming to C
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then you could say that just using void-pointers in C that C is also dynamically typed.
In C you would only use void pointers very occasionally, to work around the lack of generics/templates in data structures. Most of the time, objects have types. In Cello, everything is a void pointer. Limited as it is, compiler type checking in C is still valuable.
Static typing gives types to expressions (in the program text), not to objects (at runtime).
Re: Cello – A library that brings higher level programming to C
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
The worst part of that macro is that it is inherently unhygienic: it leaks the variable name 'i' up the scope
Presumably there is a #define I int floating around somewhere so that need not be the case (note the capital I inside the curly brace).
the Big "I" is the type, which is a macro parameter. The variable name "i" is not a parameter. If There is another variable "i" in the scope, the loop variable will shadow it in the DO statement. Something like this
float i = 10;
DO({i+= 10;} 20);
float i_1 = 10;
{I i_2=0,_n=(n);for(;i_2Re: Cello – A library that brings higher level programming to C
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
Presumably there is a #define I int floating around somewhere so that need not be the case (note the capital I inside the curly brace).
the Big "I" is the type, which is a macro parameter. The variable name "i" is not a parameter. If There is another variable "i" in the scope, the loop variable will shadow it in the DO statement. Something like this float i = 10; DO({i+= 10;} 20); will evaluate to this, modifying the "i" declared inside the macro float i_1 = 10; {I i_2=0,_n=(n);for(;i_2
Hm, in the linked page there is a typedef long for I.
typedef long I;
#define DO(n,x) {I i=0,_n=(n);for(;i DO({i+= 10;}, 20);
typedef long I;
{I i=0,_n=({i+= 10;});for(;iSo that would make this:
typedef long I;
{I i=0,_n=(20);for(;iWhat I really don't get is if they're going to use _n for the count anyway why not count it down to 0, that way the whole 'i' could be avoided.
(you'd still have a problem with _n but that could be overcome with a convention, which of course someone will forget with some nasty bug as a result)