@kram: bring it on... I'm so tired of \ for types :)
and see if you can get == and != in there too :)
@John Blackedge: I guess you havent used any of the modern compilers... havent seen a error dump like that in a coupla years :)
@Rhyolite: followed much the same path as you, except sprinkle c, c++, java, and php around VB... still, I much prefer the {} syntax as most of the languages I work with use it :) Still... I'm pretty much language neutral... if the runtime has the functions, it doesnt really matter what language I write the code in.
@kram: my only complaint with your sample is -> for accessors... figure out some way to track type/field names so you know when you need to translate to "." or "\" so we can use "." all the time :) (the other features I would be interested in would require a full LALR parser, and it looks like you are just doing substitution, so we wont go there for now :)
and see if you can get == and != in there too :)
@John Blackedge: I guess you havent used any of the modern compilers... havent seen a error dump like that in a coupla years :)
@Rhyolite: followed much the same path as you, except sprinkle c, c++, java, and php around VB... still, I much prefer the {} syntax as most of the languages I work with use it :) Still... I'm pretty much language neutral... if the runtime has the functions, it doesnt really matter what language I write the code in.
@kram: my only complaint with your sample is -> for accessors... figure out some way to track type/field names so you know when you need to translate to "." or "\" so we can use "." all the time :) (the other features I would be interested in would require a full LALR parser, and it looks like you are just doing substitution, so we wont go there for now :)