Thread: Syntax Design ...

Hi again!

I hope I'm not posting in a wrong place ^_^"...

Btw, I need your suggestion to my basic like programming language.

It has two features called Class Aliases and Alias for subtitution.

Class Aliases are just like toString() in Java but they can be used for any Class, not just String.

For instance:

Code:

Class Apple

  Alias Apple As String
    Return "I'm an Apple!" <-- LOL
  End Alias

  Alias Apple As Number
    Return 10
           ^-- Just for example
  End Alias

  /* Syntax:
  Alias ClassName As AnotherClassName
    .
    .
    Return objectOfAnotherClassName
  End Alias
  */
End Class

Dim apple As New Apple
Console.printLn apple           <-- 0x???? the object pointer
Console.printLn apple As String <-- I'm an Apple!
Console.printLn apple As Number <-- 10

And the second is Alias for subtitution, behaves just like #define in C, but a little bit more simple.

Syntax:

Code:

Alias new_name As name

Example:

Code:

Alias debug As Console.printLn
.
.
debug "ERROR? " & errorNumber

And then...

Code:

Class Apple

  Alias print As Console.printLn  

  Alias Apple As String
    print "Test!"
    Return "I'm an Apple!"
  End Alias

  Alias Apple As Number
    Return 10
  End Alias

End Class

Will you confused to a code like above?

Mmm... maybe there is another way to implement this one?

Thanks in advance.

Originally Posted by laserlight

To liken this to a C++ feature, would you say that your aliases are like type conversion functions?

But in OOP style, and yet simple.

No, It is not confusing. But again I don't know anything about basic so not really good to judge.
The as keyword exists in C# but it doesn't do exactly this

Well, why not just make a toInt() or toSomeClass()?

Elaborate a bit of the usefulness of such a feature.
1) The toInt(), toObj() etc etc functions can be stored in an interface, so the basic toType() exists always and can be implemented as you want.
2) If they don't exist you 'll get a compile time error.

So why make them a language feature?
The way C# uses as seems more useful...

Originally Posted by C_ntua

Well, why not just make a toInt() or toSomeClass()?

Elaborate a bit of the usefulness of such a feature.
1) The toInt(), toObj() etc etc functions can be stored in an interface, so the basic toType() exists always and can be implemented as you want.
2) If they don't exist you 'll get a compile time error.

So why make them a language feature?
The way C# uses as seems more useful...

Class aliases done just by a cast. Without calling toXXX method..

Originally Posted by laserlight

I am guessing that the conversion must always be explicit. There are advantages to this (conversions will always be expected) and disadvantages (verbose syntax required).

There will be implicit conversion too ^_^

Originally Posted by laserlight

What I do not understand is "Alias for subtitution". How does it differ from "Class Aliases"? They both seem to provide a conversion from the class type to some other type.

Class aliases are for converting base class type into another class type, and of course, they works only on their object.

"Alias for subtitution" subtitutes the 'name' of variable/function/class/package/module definition.
It doesn't convert anything at all. And works just like safe-macro (it will warn when ambigious things detected)

Code:

Dim frmMainHandle As HWND
... do something with frmMainHandle ...

{when frmMainHandle is not used anymore...
  subtitute it instead of creating a new variable}
Alias btnOKHandle As frmMainHandle
... do something with btnOKHandle ...

In C/C++ it's done by

Code:

#define btnOKHandle frmMainHandle

But yet, it's a compiler directive and will not checking for any collisions...

Thank you laserlight!!

Originally Posted by laserlight

Instead of "class aliases" you might want to call them "class conversions" or something like that.

I owe you this one!

Consider if your aliases will obey the rules of scope.

Yes, it's.