RE: Asm-Generator - integration with Compiler

>
>
>
> ________________________________
> > Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 08:57:08 +0300
> > From: [hidden email]
> > To: [hidden email]
> > Subject: Asm-Generator - integration with Compiler
> >
> > To indicate that currently submitted method is assembler, developer
> > just need to put
> > <assembler> pragma in code.
> > I will place some 'awful hacks' in Compiler to react on this pragma
> > and redirect all further processing to my classes.
>
> Alternatively, you can just add a class side method (#compilerClass I think
> it is) that tells Smalltalk to use what ever class you want when it tries to
> compile methods for the class.  This might be better "self documenting" for
> people reading the code that aren't familiar with what <assembler> might
> mean and wouldn't know where too look.  But if they see compilerClass then
> they know exactly what class to look at to see what's going on.
>

> On 22/07/07, J J <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> ________________________________
>> > Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 08:57:08 +0300
>> > From: [hidden email]
>> > To: [hidden email]
>> > Subject: Asm-Generator - integration with Compiler
>> >
>> > To indicate that currently submitted method is assembler, developer
>> > just need to put
>> > <assembler> pragma in code.
>> > I will place some 'awful hacks' in Compiler to react on this pragma
>> > and redirect all further processing to my classes.
>>
>> Alternatively, you can just add a class side method (#compilerClass I  
>> think
>> it is) that tells Smalltalk to use what ever class you want when it  
>> tries to
>> compile methods for the class.  This might be better "self documenting"  
>> for
>> people reading the code that aren't familiar with what <assembler> might
>> mean and wouldn't know where too look.  But if they see compilerClass  
>> then
>> they know exactly what class to look at to see what's going on.
>>
>
> Its already done as you said :) I have a trait with couple of methods,
> which , when you use it in your class, then all instance side methods
> can be potentially treated as assembler.

> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:11:51 +0200, Igor Stasenko wrote:
> > On 22/07/07, J J <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> > Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 08:57:08 +0300
> >> > From: [hidden email]
> >> > To: [hidden email]
> >> > Subject: Asm-Generator - integration with Compiler
> >> >
> >> > To indicate that currently submitted method is assembler, developer
> >> > just need to put
> >> > <assembler> pragma in code.
> >> > I will place some 'awful hacks' in Compiler to react on this pragma
> >> > and redirect all further processing to my classes.
> >>
> >> Alternatively, you can just add a class side method (#compilerClass I
> >> think
> >> it is) that tells Smalltalk to use what ever class you want when it
> >> tries to
> >> compile methods for the class.  This might be better "self documenting"
> >> for
> >> people reading the code that aren't familiar with what <assembler> might
> >> mean and wouldn't know where too look.  But if they see compilerClass
> >> then
> >> they know exactly what class to look at to see what's going on.
> >>
> >
> > Its already done as you said :) I have a trait with couple of methods,
> > which , when you use it in your class, then all instance side methods
> > can be potentially treated as assembler.
>
> Ahh, putting software composition at work :) can't wait for seeing this in
> action :)
>
> >
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Exupery mailing list
> >> [hidden email]
> >> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/exupery
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Exupery mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/exupery
>