Scoping template variables in “has-a” (compositional) relationships
I’m developing a new templating language for PHP, and one of the features is an object-oriented approach to nested child templates. For example, I can declare an object of type HtmlBuilder like this:
C++ Template Metaprogramming and Call By Need Evaluation
I recently wrote a fairly complex C++ meta function that boils down to:
C++ Template Metaprogramming and Call By Need Evaluation
I recently wrote a fairly complex C++ meta function that boils down to:
C++ Template Metaprogramming and Call By Need Evaluation
I recently wrote a fairly complex C++ meta function that boils down to:
C++ Template Metaprogramming and Call By Need Evaluation
I recently wrote a fairly complex C++ meta function that boils down to:
C++ Templates where the type is a shared_ptr
When creating template classes in C++, if the type upon which the template will be specialized is intended to be a shared_ptr type, is it better to make T a shared_ptr type or make T a non-pointer type?
What about LISP, if anything, makes it easier to implement macro systems?
I’m learning Scheme from the SICP and I’m getting the impression that a big part of what makes Scheme and, even more so, LISP special is the macro system. But, since macros are expanded at compile-time, why don’t people make equivalent macro systems for C/Python/Java/whatever? For example, one could bind the python command to expand-macros | python or whatever. The code would still be portable to people who don’t use the macro system, one would just expand the macros before publishing code. But I don’t know of anything like that except templates in C++/Haskell, which I gather aren’t really the same. What about LISP, if anything, makes it easier to implement macro systems?
What about LISP, if anything, makes it easier to implement macro systems?
I’m learning Scheme from the SICP and I’m getting the impression that a big part of what makes Scheme and, even more so, LISP special is the macro system. But, since macros are expanded at compile-time, why don’t people make equivalent macro systems for C/Python/Java/whatever? For example, one could bind the python command to expand-macros | python or whatever. The code would still be portable to people who don’t use the macro system, one would just expand the macros before publishing code. But I don’t know of anything like that except templates in C++/Haskell, which I gather aren’t really the same. What about LISP, if anything, makes it easier to implement macro systems?
What about LISP, if anything, makes it easier to implement macro systems?
I’m learning Scheme from the SICP and I’m getting the impression that a big part of what makes Scheme and, even more so, LISP special is the macro system. But, since macros are expanded at compile-time, why don’t people make equivalent macro systems for C/Python/Java/whatever? For example, one could bind the python command to expand-macros | python or whatever. The code would still be portable to people who don’t use the macro system, one would just expand the macros before publishing code. But I don’t know of anything like that except templates in C++/Haskell, which I gather aren’t really the same. What about LISP, if anything, makes it easier to implement macro systems?