Re: Running a preprocessor from GPS?

[EGarrulo <egarrulo@gmail.com>]

On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 10:32:16 PM UTC+2, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> "EGarrulo" wrote in message 
> >> Not strongly typed.
> >
> > What do you mean?  Common Lisp has FORMAT and it is as strongly typed as 
> > they can be.
> 
> In Ada terms, typing is something done at compile-time. Ada does not have 
> runtime typing (one could imagine tag checks to be runtime typing, but 
> that's a check in Ada, not related to typing).

But is this a valid excuse?  Aren't programming languages supposed to
let programmers write useful programs?  Programmers shouldn't be
looking for clever ways to accomplish basic tasks.  Neither should they
write verbose code to accomplish those basic tasks.  If a programming
language doesn't let programmers print formatted output easily, then it
is deficient and it must be fixed, because printing formatted output is
a basic task.

If Ada offered runtime typing by means of a type `Any`, then `Printf`
could be trivially written as:

   type Printf_Arguments is array (Positive range <>) of Any;
   
   procedure Printf (Format : String; Arguments : Printf_Arguments);

> > Wanting to write sloppy code and wanting to write only what is necessary 
> > are
> > two different attitudes, don't you agree?
> 
> What *you* think is unnecessary might be very valuable in someone else's 
> context. And they'd view it as "sloppy".

Exactly.  That is why I wonder why I can't write a call to `Trace`
as a one-liner.  Doing so would be very valuable to me.

> > Generics *are* glorified macros anyway, in a sense.
> 
> This is an especial sore point with me!
> 
> Formally in the Ada RM they are, which causes all manner of nonsense effects 
> which then get erased by special rules. Stupid.

What do you mean?  Conceptually, generics are macros.  If a compiler
is clever enough to reuse a common implementation, then kudos to the
writers of that compiler, but such behaviour shouldn't be a 
requirement, I think.