JavaScript is a widely used and known language and I've found that
with few changes an Harbour source can be "digested" by IDEs like
Eclipse or NetBeans as a JavaScript source and that these changes can
also "fix" some "ambiguities" of the actual language.
Moreover I think this "alternative" syntax would increase the
acceptance of Harbour to new developers that use C, C++, C#, Php, etc.
Please understand me I'm not suggesting to use the new syntax in
Harbour codebase and everything need to be optional, I only want to
understand if the pp can be used and how and where changes to the
compiler are needed.
1) {} to enclose function's body. This valid code:
function test( a )
if a == 1
return .t.
else
return .f.
endif
using -w gives: warning: W0007 Function 'TEST' does not end with
RETURN statement, so it would be good to have:
function test( a ) {
if a == 1
return .t.
else
return .f.
endif
}
the rule could be: "if after the function there is an open curly brace
there must be a close brace at the end and at least one return inside"
2) ";" as statement separator. This is a valid code:
function test( a ) ; outstd( "Hello World" ) ; return nil
but not if I simply "reform" the code:
function test( a ) ;
outstd( "Hello World" ) ;
return nil
the rule could be: ";" is the statement separator but is optional if
it is followed by a <newline>
( HB_PP_MULTILINE_STRING could be changed to "\" <newline> )
3) "=" vs "==" vs ":="
Viktor took some time to change <> to !( == ) and = to := so it could
be that = is always assignment and == is always equal
( clearly activated via a compiler switch ) so we could have:
function test( a )
var a = 1;
instead of
function test( a )
local a := 1
in classes we already use VAR for "local" members.
These changes are enough to get a correctly outlined source with the
syntax highlighted.
Comments?
best regards,
Lorenzo
_______________________________________________
Harbour mailing list
Harbour@harbour-project.org
http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
