Re: What's up with token filters (Re: New operators?)

[Asko Kauppi <askok@...>]

Very Tight architectures would only benefit of further sugar  
reduction from the core. They tend to use precompiled bytecodes  
anyhow, which is behind the token handling stage.

With Andy's idea about C-side-only token filtering, we could have a  
continuum of choices for the developers. Pick as much (or little)  
sugar as they like.

-asko


rhempel@hempeldesigngroup.com kirjoitti 13.4.2007 kello 19:54:

> > > How about getting token filters into the game, and then _reducing_
> > > even the currently existing sugar (: notation, function name() etc.)
> > > into a joint default token filter (let's say -llua51), and out of  
> > > the
> > > C lexer.
> >
> > Is there any estimates for the resulting performance? (Not to mention
> > how to implement the : notation correctly [that is, without extra  
> > side
> > effects] with token filters...)
> >
> > -- Roberto
>
> And please let's not forget the implementations that depend on  the
> small existing core that may not be able to tolerate the additional
> RAM and code space requirements of a token filter system.
>
> Unless, of course, the token filter mechanism reduces the overall
> code image :-)
>
> Ralph