search

JetBrains / Nitra

Public Nitra repository
Other
554 stars 43 forks source link

Leaking .Net Types in Grammar Definitions #9

Open sirinath opened 10 years ago

sirinath commented 10 years ago

To keep portability in mind perhaps you guys can consider not to have .net types leaking into syntax definitions.

Once you have ability to target other backends this might be used to port nitra itself to other platforms. You can have platform specific types in Nemerle 2 (similar to Haxe) but best is to avoid it in Nitra.

sirinath commented 9 years ago

Best is to shadow .net types with an alternate definition so this is will not be too tied up to the .net platform in the future.

kekekeks commented 9 years ago

I think that shouldn't be a problem, since .NET 4.6 will be licensed under MIT, so it would be easy to just feed Nitra compiler with sources (Nemerle is already capable of compiling C#).

sirinath commented 9 years ago

It is still much clearer to have on type system within the scope of Nitra than relying on platform specific types.

kekekeks commented 9 years ago

Why invent something new if there is existing open source implementation that can be then compiled by Nitra?

rampelstinskin commented 9 years ago

At this moment we don't have easy way to do it. After proper typing DSL will be complete, we remove all dependencies from platform.

sirinath commented 9 years ago

OK Great. This will be awesome.

sirinath commented 9 years ago

@kekekeks What I meant is you have an local alias which mimics something like StringBuffer but with a more generic interface so this type will be available in other platform also E,g, JVM or a custom VM.