[M3devel] "target specific pragmas"?

[Darko]

If you like the idea, maybe you'd like join me in working out what  
such a syntax would look like? Note that I want to keep the structure  
the same, so no assignments in expressions, for example. Also, would C  
programmers revolt at not having post and pre increment, also inside  
expressions (as statements would be ok)? Requiring some sort of EVAL  
statement? I guess the big question is whether removing these things  
would make the whole idea unacceptable to the target audience. Does  
the Algol syntax serve a purpose in making it clear that it isn't C?


On 16/02/2008, at 8:42 PM, Mika Nystrom wrote:

>
> "If Steve Bourne could turn C into Algol using cpp, I'm sure you
> can figure out how to turn Algol[Modula] back into C using <...>"...
>
> If you think it would help acceptance of Modula-3, I don't see why
> not?
>
> I copied the code exactly the way it came off the old half-inch
> tape from Berkeley.
>
> Darko writes:
>> I'm not sure what you're getting at or if I'm missing something  
>> witty.
>> I've said the form of the keywords makes little or no difference in  
>> my
>> opinion. In my mail you quote I say there should be a C like syntax
>> for M3 as well as the existing one. I wasn't being sarcastic. It's a
>> matter of taste. I write in both all the time and it doesn't have any
>> impact on me, I go almost entirely by indentation, which I think is
>> very important. The indentation is pretty awful in code you posted  
>> but
>> it could me my mailer.
>>
>> On 16/02/2008, at 10:51 AM, Mika Nystrom wrote:
> ...