Hi david What you describe is a bit scary. Because this is just changing the syntax but it is probably also breaking refactorings and probably other. May I ask why would we need macros since after more than 30 years nobody really need them. So do you have good motivating cases for quasi quotes Opal supports compile time evaluation. Stef
The ES6 design is sound and if you are in a hurry to get the capability it is a great way to go. Once you start using it and get a taste for quasi-literal little languages you will find that you want more.
Having a quasi-literal that let's you name the little language to parse you open a very interesting door. After the dust settles you need a parser and compiler framework that allows plugins at every stage. You "MUST" have a rich and stable AST and it must be usable as a quasi-literal because transpilers abound. You wind up with transpiler code that is templated and quite "Lispy".
At the end of the day you will finally let in Macros. I believe thatJulia got all this right. They stick a "@" in front of their macro invocations so you get rid of a lot of confusion. David Moon made the Julia macro system a thing of true beauty. Perfection actually.
At the end of the day you want Smalltalk Compile Time "Staged Meta Evaluation".
Still, at a minimum go with the ES6 design. Consider "<|" because " ` " is hard to see. Some fonts do a terrible job with it. You could do both.
-- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Re-vwnc-Does-anyone-have-a-new-string-literal-tp466708... Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/