ok, while thinking about my language in the works, i realized that classes are similar to functions (they can be). I''m thinkin of having them both be the same thing in my grammar (i sound all newbie like). for instance, i could have the "class" and "function" specifiers, but all they do is change access (like how structs and classes differ in C++). i sound really incoherent, this hard to describe.
class MyClass (args) //class specifier, myclass identifier.
//args are like template arguments
{
function Myfunction (args) //standard function stuff;
{
function FunctionInAFunction (args) //only visible from
{ //MyFunction
}
public function FunctionInAFunctionExposed()
{}
}
}
//the "public" says that it can be called with a call like:
MyClass.MyFunction.FunctionInAFunctionExposed(args)
i''m brainstorming here...just like some feedback..this is by no means what i''m doing (too C-Like...i want less syntax!) I might just have everything be statement blocks where methods and properties are public or private. and then entire blocks can be public or private by default, and then individual members can be specified:
public
{
type var;
private func //functions and classes can be named code
//blocks
{
type func_var;
public type other_var;
}
}
thanks for reading this incoherent bullshit. If you understand what i mean please give me some feedback. I''m not implementing the rest of my parser without all the grammar.
) This is still just brainstorming though. this block idea really appeals to me because it will make traversing the parse tree much easier.
