The excellent 2011 Advent of Raku post Meta-programming: what, why and how provides a few clear examples of using EXPORTHOW
to create a declarator that acts like class
. Here's the first:
my class SingleInheritanceClassHOW
is Metamodel::ClassHOW
{
method add_parent(Mu $obj, Mu $parent) {
if +self.parents($obj, :local) > 0 {
die "Multiple inheritance is forbidden!";
}
callsame;
}
}
my module EXPORTHOW { }
EXPORTHOW.WHO.<class> = SingleInheritanceClassHOW;
Is there a way to do something similar for a declarator that acts like sub
(that is, that allows the use to supply a signature and block, rather than allowing the user to supply attributes and methods)? The metaclass of a Sub
is ClassHOW
, so it seems that something similar should be possible, but I'm not seeing a way to do so.
Usage: to export or Not to export Normally we use this to share the environment with a child process: Configure the environment of the child process or shell. Define a variable that a bash script executed from the parent shell would use. Setup environment variables for terminal multiplexers, like screen or tmux.
You can use the export command to make local variables global. To make your local shell variables global automatically, export them in your . profile file. Note: Variables can be exported down to child shells but not exported up to parent shells.
1 Answer. For exporting it, you need to use its name ( VARIABLE ), not its contents ( $VARIABLE ).
The EXPORTHOW
mechanism is only for overriding the metaclass that will be used for package declarators, with the slight extension that EXPORTHOW::DECLARE
also performs a grammar tweak that introduces a new package declarator.
While one can call .HOW
on a Sub
, the result does not relate to the subroutine itself, but rather the metaclass of the Sub
type, of which a subroutine is an instance.
Really, EXPORTHOW
is an "easy things easy" mechanism (to the degree it's fair to call anything relating to meta-programming easy!) It was also a straightforward thing to provide: the parsing of package declarations was already extremely regular, and the compiler already maintained a mapping table from package keyword to metaclass, so providing a way for a module to replace entries in that table (or add new ones for DECLARE
) was barely a few hours of compiler hackery.
Routines are vastly less regular, even if that's only somewhat apparent syntactically. While packages pretty much parse the keyword (class
, role
, grammar
, etc.) and what follows is the very same syntax and semantics for all of them (modulo roles permitting a signature), there are separate parse rules and semantics behind each of sub
, method
, macro
, and rule
. Their interaction with the overall compilation process is also rather more involved. The ongoing RakuAST effort is bringing a bit more order to that chaos, and ultimately - when coupled with slangs - will offer a way to introduce new sub
-like constructs, as well as to give them semantics.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With