RE: Asm-Generator - integration with Compiler

[J J-6]

Some parts of this message have been removed. Learn more about Nabble's security policy.

---

> Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 08:57:08 +0300
> From: siguctua@...
> To: exupery@...
> Subject: Asm-Generator - integration with Compiler
>
> To indicate that currently submitted method is assembler, developer
> just need to put
> <assembler> pragma in code.
> I will place some 'awful hacks' in Compiler to react on this pragma
> and redirect all further processing to my classes.

Alternatively, you can just add a class side method (#compilerClass I think it is) that tells Smalltalk to use what ever class you want when it tries to compile methods for the class.  This might be better "self documenting" for people reading the code that aren't familiar with what <assembler> might mean and wouldn't know where too look.  But if they see compilerClass then they know exactly what class to look at to see what's going on.

---

Local listings, incredible imagery, and driving directions - all in one place! Find it!
_______________________________________________
Exupery mailing list
Exupery@...
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/exupery

[Igor Stasenko]

On 22/07/07, J J <azreal1977@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> ________________________________
> > Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 08:57:08 +0300
> > From: siguctua@...
> > To: exupery@...
> > Subject: Asm-Generator - integration with Compiler
> >
> > To indicate that currently submitted method is assembler, developer
> > just need to put
> > <assembler> pragma in code.
> > I will place some 'awful hacks' in Compiler to react on this pragma
> > and redirect all further processing to my classes.
>
> Alternatively, you can just add a class side method (#compilerClass I think
> it is) that tells Smalltalk to use what ever class you want when it tries to
> compile methods for the class.  This might be better "self documenting" for
> people reading the code that aren't familiar with what <assembler> might
> mean and wouldn't know where too look.  But if they see compilerClass then
> they know exactly what class to look at to see what's going on.
>

Its already done as you said :) I have a trait with couple of methods,
which , when you use it in your class, then all instance side methods
can be potentially treated as assembler.

> ________________________________
> Local listings, incredible imagery, and driving directions - all in one
> place! Find it!
> _______________________________________________
> Exupery mailing list
> Exupery@...
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/exupery
>
>


--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
_______________________________________________
Exupery mailing list
Exupery@...
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/exupery

[Klaus D. Witzel]

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:11:51 +0200, Igor Stasenko wrote:

> On 22/07/07, J J <azreal1977@...> wrote:
>>
>> ________________________________
>> > Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 08:57:08 +0300
>> > From: siguctua@...
>> > To: exupery@...
>> > Subject: Asm-Generator - integration with Compiler
>> >
>> > To indicate that currently submitted method is assembler, developer
>> > just need to put
>> > <assembler> pragma in code.
>> > I will place some 'awful hacks' in Compiler to react on this pragma
>> > and redirect all further processing to my classes.
>>
>> Alternatively, you can just add a class side method (#compilerClass I  
>> think
>> it is) that tells Smalltalk to use what ever class you want when it  
>> tries to
>> compile methods for the class.  This might be better "self documenting"  
>> for
>> people reading the code that aren't familiar with what <assembler> might
>> mean and wouldn't know where too look.  But if they see compilerClass  
>> then
>> they know exactly what class to look at to see what's going on.
>>
>
> Its already done as you said :) I have a trait with couple of methods,
> which , when you use it in your class, then all instance side methods
> can be potentially treated as assembler.

Ahh, putting software composition at work :) can't wait for seeing this in  
action :)

>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Exupery mailing list
>> Exupery@...
>> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/exupery
>>
>>
>
>


_______________________________________________
Exupery mailing list
Exupery@...
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/exupery

[Igor Stasenko]

You can also visit my blog
http://computeradvenrutes.blogspot.com/
where i lazily write so details. I putting notes in blog mainly
because i don't want something important being lost in mailing lists.
It also helpful for newcomers to quickly get in topic :)

On 23/07/07, Klaus D. Witzel <klaus.witzel@...> wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:11:51 +0200, Igor Stasenko wrote:
> > On 22/07/07, J J <azreal1977@...> wrote:
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> > Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 08:57:08 +0300
> >> > From: siguctua@...
> >> > To: exupery@...
> >> > Subject: Asm-Generator - integration with Compiler
> >> >
> >> > To indicate that currently submitted method is assembler, developer
> >> > just need to put
> >> > <assembler> pragma in code.
> >> > I will place some 'awful hacks' in Compiler to react on this pragma
> >> > and redirect all further processing to my classes.
> >>
> >> Alternatively, you can just add a class side method (#compilerClass I
> >> think
> >> it is) that tells Smalltalk to use what ever class you want when it
> >> tries to
> >> compile methods for the class.  This might be better "self documenting"
> >> for
> >> people reading the code that aren't familiar with what <assembler> might
> >> mean and wouldn't know where too look.  But if they see compilerClass
> >> then
> >> they know exactly what class to look at to see what's going on.
> >>
> >
> > Its already done as you said :) I have a trait with couple of methods,
> > which , when you use it in your class, then all instance side methods
> > can be potentially treated as assembler.
>
> Ahh, putting software composition at work :) can't wait for seeing this in
> action :)
>
> >
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Exupery mailing list
> >> Exupery@...
> >> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/exupery
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Exupery mailing list
> Exupery@...
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/exupery
>

--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
_______________________________________________
Exupery mailing list
Exupery@...
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/exupery