I've implemented the let keyword and expressions in Extopenscad can now contain let, the way openscad parses them and with openscad semantics:
function f (a) let (a2 = a * 2) a2;
b=5;
c=3;
d=let (e=b, f = d) let () e - f;
Which are all valid in that other system.
I'm working on adding to the test suite for the new syntax but the ternary operator not working with comparison operators (without parentheses), and declaring a function without the function keyword (which openscad does not parse) raised some questions.
It looks like the current Extopenscad is "a superset of a subset" of the openscad language. Where is the language going, what are the guiding principles for moving it forward? If no one has strong opinions on that, I will happily inject my own.
Do many people write in extopenscad, or do most people just use implicitcad with haskell source? How much do people writing extopenscad depend on its incompatibilities with openscad?
The parser could provide more accurate messages about syntax errors. Would anybody mind if I did some major surgery to improve that?
Thanks for your patience,
Kelvin
Thanks, sen.
Are there any incompatibilities that get in your way?
Kelvin
an email to implicitcad+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ImplicitCAD" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to implicitcad+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.