Sounds cool ... Would "foo => bar; baz +=> bar;" mean the same thing as "foo + baz => bar;" then?
close: "baz +=> bar;" is the same as "bar + baz => bar".
Is there any example code (or even documentation) for this?
Not really. (Uh, what's documentation again?) There are some test cases - mostly for unit testing that doesn't do much else. "cvs update -d" should get the "v2/test" and the 100+ test code segments. Phil (mostly) and I made these to "rigorously" test the language. However, since unit generators are still being re-imported, no sound can be synthesized yet (boo). Also, not all the grammar is finalized yet in these files, and we as a group/community will continue to evolve the language. Documentation - the good news is that Adam Tindale and others has been working hard to put together bona-fide docs for ChucK. The bad news, well there is no bad news really, for once.
GW> The import system is the bottle neck right now. Further hacking GW> depends on this. Once it's done, then C/C++ code can be imported GW> less stupidly than before, and the portal to massive hacking will GW> be opened (yikes).
Huh? Import from what to where?
C/C++ to ChucK. classes written in ChucK can instantiate imported objects, and even extend them.
GW> #------------------------------------------------------------------ GW> # by default, ChucK uses a pre-configured libsndfile... GW> # uncomment the next 3 lines to use libsndfile on your system GW> #------------------------------------------------------------------ GW> #FLAGS+= -D__CK_SNDFILE_NATIVE__ GW> #LIBS+= -lsndfile GW> #SF_OBJ=
Oups, sorry I didn't notice that!
Um, it might have been more helpful if we actually documented this somewhere other than the makefile itself... we are at fault.
Thats great! And sorry to be a bother with just loads of questions.
Good questions and of course no bother at all. This is chuck-dev, after all! Best, Ge!