rdococ wrote:

__Falcon-Games__ wrote:

-snip-

Interesting… what does the ‘summary = expand(summary)’ line do?

ajskateboarder wrote:

__Falcon-Games__ wrote:

So to create an object in Sandwich you don't need to create classes first, here's how you do it.

import Console

fun main() {
    obj = Standard.Object(a=1, b=2, c=3)
    Console.out(obj.a, obj.b, obj.c)
}

1
2
3

Reminds me a lot of JavaScript objects - very powerful feature - but not a very huge fan of the Standard.Object declaration. Seems a bit too verbose compared to using braces, yes?

TheSecondGilbert wrote:

__Falcon-Games__ wrote:

So to create an object in Sandwich you don't need to create classes first, here's how you do it.

import Console

fun main() {
    obj = Standard.Object(a=1, b=2, c=3)
    Console.out(obj.a, obj.b, obj.c)
}

1
2
3

And for classes.

import Console

class Fruit(type) {
    fun summary(type) {
        Console.out("I am a fruit of type " ++ type)
    }

    type = type
    summary = expand(summary)
}

apple = Fruit("apple")
Console.out(apple.type)
Console.out(apple.summary())

apple
I am a fruit of type apple

Could this be a bit easier? (for example, calling `object` instead of `Standard.Object`)

__Falcon-Games__ wrote:

It will pass the variables on the current scope as arguments to the function which has been expanded.

__Falcon-Games wrote:

It is verbose but it makes the most sense and is the easiest to parse, could you suggest any alternatives?

__Falcon-Games__ wrote:

ajskateboarder wrote:

__Falcon-Games__ wrote:

So to create an object in Sandwich you don't need to create classes first, here's how you do it.
snip

Reminds me a lot of JavaScript objects - very powerful feature - but not a very huge fan of the Standard.Object declaration. Seems a bit too verbose compared to using braces, yes?

It is verbose but it makes the most sense and is the easiest to parse, could you suggest any alternatives?

rdococ wrote:

__Falcon-Games__ wrote:

It will pass the variables on the current scope as arguments to the function which has been expanded.

Huh… I take it your functions don't capture variables from their scope automatically?

__Falcon-Games wrote:

It is verbose but it makes the most sense and is the easiest to parse, could you suggest any alternatives?

ajskateboarder wrote:

__Falcon-Games__ wrote:

ajskateboarder wrote:

__Falcon-Games__ wrote:

So to create an object in Sandwich you don't need to create classes first, here's how you do it.
snip

Reminds me a lot of JavaScript objects - very powerful feature - but not a very huge fan of the Standard.Object declaration. Seems a bit too verbose compared to using braces, yes?

It is verbose but it makes the most sense and is the easiest to parse, could you suggest any alternatives?

Maybe move “Object” and other datatypes into a seperate library that you specifically import? Like “import Object from Datatypes”

__Falcon-Games__ wrote:

(#24)
Making everything an import is not what I want. I think I am going to make an operator be the constructor for object automatically like $ or % maybe.

use std::env;

fn main() {
  // Now, std::env::args can be used like so:
  let args = env::args();

  // However, I can also access things from std::fs, even if I have not used it,
  // by fully qualifying: 
  std::fs::write("foo.txt", "bar").unwrap();
}

mybearworld wrote:

Maybe you can do it like Rust?

use std::env;

fn main() {
  // Now, std::env::args can be used like so:
  let args = env::args();

  // However, I can also access things from std::fs, even if I have not used it,
  // by fully qualifying: 
  std::fs::write("foo.txt", "bar").unwrap();
}

ajskateboarder wrote:

(#26)
I'm personally not a big fan of Rust's implicit imports You should be able to know what a program uses if you just look at the top of a file

mybearworld wrote:

__Falcon-Games__ wrote:

(#24)
Making everything an import is not what I want. I think I am going to make an operator be the constructor for object automatically like $ or % maybe.

Maybe you can do it like Rust?

use std::env;

fn main() {
  // Now, std::env::args can be used like so:
  let args = env::args();

  // However, I can also access things from std::fs, even if I have not used it,
  // by fully qualifying: 
  std::fs::write("foo.txt", "bar").unwrap();
}

__Falcon-Games__ wrote:

Yeah no. So I have thought to make $ a short hand for object since it currently has no use.
So $(a=1, b=2, c=3)?

rdococ wrote:

__Falcon-Games__ wrote:

Yeah no. So I have thought to make $ a short hand for object since it currently has no use.
So $(a=1, b=2, c=3)?

If you're not using square brackets for anything, how about [a=1, b=2, c=3]?

__Falcon-Games__ wrote:

rdococ wrote:

__Falcon-Games__ wrote:

Yeah no. So I have thought to make $ a short hand for object since it currently has no use.
So $(a=1, b=2, c=3)?

If you're not using square brackets for anything, how about [a=1, b=2, c=3]?

That is genius.

ajskateboarder wrote:

(#31)

__Falcon-Games__ wrote:

rdococ wrote:

__Falcon-Games__ wrote:

Yeah no. So I have thought to make $ a short hand for object since it currently has no use.
So $(a=1, b=2, c=3)?

If you're not using square brackets for anything, how about [a=1, b=2, c=3]?

That is genius.

What would you do for lists?

mybearworld wrote:

ajskateboarder wrote:

(#31)

__Falcon-Games__ wrote:

rdococ wrote:

__Falcon-Games__ wrote:

Yeah no. So I have thought to make $ a short hand for object since it currently has no use.
So $(a=1, b=2, c=3)?

If you're not using square brackets for anything, how about [a=1, b=2, c=3]?

That is genius.

What would you do for lists?

Maybe just [1, 2, 3]? Also, I probably missed something, is there any reason objects can't just be {a=1, b=2, c=3}?

mybearworld wrote:

What do callbacks have to do with this?

__Falcon-Games__ wrote:

Because the syntax of a callback is…

import Console

fun main() {
    // Create a callback and run it.
    {
        Console.out("Hello, world!")
    }()
}

NFlex23 wrote:

__Falcon-Games__ wrote:

Because the syntax of a callback is…

import Console

fun main() {
    // Create a callback and run it.
    {
        Console.out("Hello, world!")
    }()
}

So a callback is just an anonymous function? Any reason you aren't using `fn() { … }`?

__Falcon-Games__ wrote:

NFlex23 wrote:

__Falcon-Games__ wrote:

Because the syntax of a callback is…

import Console

fun main() {
    // Create a callback and run it.
    {
        Console.out("Hello, world!")
    }()
}

So a callback is just an anonymous function? Any reason you aren't using `fn() { … }`?

Because that's weird and annoying. I also just like { … } over fn() { … }.

__Falcon-Games__ wrote:

NFlex23 wrote:

__Falcon-Games__ wrote:

Because the syntax of a callback is…

import Console

fun main() {
    // Create a callback and run it.
    {
        Console.out("Hello, world!")
    }()
}

So a callback is just an anonymous function? Any reason you aren't using `fn() { … }`?

Because that's weird and annoying. I also just like { … } over fn() { … }.

((x, y){Console.out(x + y)})(12, 1)