🚀 go-pugleaf

in article <1612@unc.cs.unc.edu>, steele@unc.cs.unc.edu (Oliver Steele) says:
> As far as LSC improvements, I would like to see:
> 
> o   Allow function declarations in prototype form, i.e.
> 	static void foo(int a, long *b)
> 	{
> 		...
> 	}
> 
> o   Make 'pascal' a modifier with its own flavor, instead of a storage
>     modifier, so I can say
> 	static int pascal xyzzy();
>     (this isn't very important, but it bothers my gestalt).
> 

Actually, these and a couple of other things would be very useful
indeed.  They would add similarity to/compatibility with the standard C++
pre-compiler, cfront (!).  I'd add:

o   Allow 'static' in front of any function declarations.  This
is legal (and often used) C, and is something cfront inserts more or
less arbitrarily.

o   Allow the equivalent of preprocessor output (what cpp would emit), 
in a file.

o   To tie it all together (might as well ask for the whole moon),
provide a mechanism to allow filtering before and after preprocessing,
as part of the Make cycle per file -- in other words, a minor form of
scripting.  These would allow automatic use of sed equivalents, cfront, etc.


All this, unless of course there's to be a LightSpeed C++ soon -- now
this, would be absolutely ideal.  Tough, perhaps, though, to track the
development of that language, in particular, the multiple inheritance 
we keep hearing rumors about, which will be very important to have.

Maybe this filtering method, while admittedly slow and nasty,
is a better way for now, since it allows third parties to market a
suitably modified release of the current cfront.  (Part of the
conversion for LSC will have to be in concert with Lightspeed, anyway,
due to the munch process).  Or maybe LSC would be interested
in doing the whole thing???


Clive Steward