Re: [pure-lang-users] Proposed syntax changes

[John C. <co...@cc...>]

Albert Graef scripsit:

> That sequencing operator should be easy to implement, but how should it 
> be named? We can't use Q's '||' because that's logical or in Pure, and 
> we can't use C's ',' because that's Pure's tupling operator. Another 
> obvious choice would be the Haskell'ish monadic sequencing operator '>>' 
> but that's currently used for bit shifts (maybe I could rename '<<'/'>>' 
> to shl/shr, though). Any other ideas?

How about -> ?

> Finally (this is not a syntax change, but it also breaks backward 
> compatibility), I'd like to revise the script search. Currently the 
> interpreter always searches the current directory and then the PURELIB 
> directory. In the case that the interpreter is run with a main script 
> (pure -x main.pure), I think it makes sense to search the directory of 
> the main script instead of the cwd (for scripts loaded with a 'using' 
> clause). That would make it possible to install the main script along 
> with any other non-library modules it needs into its own directory and 
> run it from there. This would be useful, in particular, for "shebang" 
> scripts.

The sequence used by gcc is:

1) the directory from which this file was loaded (which may itself be
a file loaded by includes)

2) the process working directory

3) specified directories with -I

4) specified directories in the environment variable *_INCLUDE_PATH

5) the system directories


-- 
Only do what only you can do.               John Cowan <co...@cc...>
  --Edsger W. Dijkstra's advice
    to a student in search of a thesis