clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 22.05.2021 um 13:33 schrieb jr:
>
> > thinking that what your + CR's (ingenious) posts demonstrate is just how much an
> > 'istype()' like function is needed in SDL.  (I've a feeling it would not be too
> > difficult to implement, a developer's perspective would be good)
>
> "Pfffffffaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha! BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"
> (*manic laughter*)
> -- Anonymous developer.
>
> Keeping track of the type of things IN THE PARSER ITSELF is painful
> enough... add to that the trouble of coming up with a nice elegant
> syntax, questions such as whether this should work only on variables, or
> also literals or even complex expressions...
>
> ... oh, and then add to the mix that the parser doesn't go, "ah, let me
> evaluate and see what the result of this expression is", but rather "ah,
> I expect this particular type here; let me see how the following makes
> any sense under that presumption"...
> ...

and yet, WFP's current 'is_type()' is an excellent start on all that.  the thing
is that _any_ "introspection" support in SDL would be a step forward.


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message