Move imported files into metafang/ dirHEADmaster

this metaprogramming attempt was started outside, and then imported here
5124eb80701523ac16928219e9a1031eded128ef..bc8c20d1e93b5c18e8915d356e74024092a74ce8

3 files changed, 91 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/metafang/cm/ex01.lua b/metafang/cm/ex01.lua
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f92ec2a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/metafang/cm/ex01.lua
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+-- Environment is loaded with the utils (as metatable.__index)
+-- Global vars (aka properties on env) will be read as decls
+
+-- TERMINOLOGY:
+-- decl: a property somewhere, the property name and the value makes up the declaration
+-- type: a value (perhaps a part of a decl), which contains a type tag ("struct", "union", "alias", etc.) and extra info for that kind of type
+
+-- _struct, _union, _alias, etc. are type construction helpers.
+-- They take the essential info, and returns a value properly decorated. For example it might just add a property {_tag="struct"}, or perhaps more.
+
+-- name implied by property key here
+Bar = _struct({
+    -- _t: Loads another type by its name. Return the type, or a placeholder if the type is not yet available
+    --     Useful recursive definitions
+    --     Undefined type errors generated on the referential resolution pass (i.e. not immediately)
+    field1 = _t("i32"),
+    field2 = _t("string"),
+    -- Deferred loading as described above
+    compound_field = _t("Foo"),
+})
+
+uint32 = _alias(_t("u32"))
+
+-- Note, defined after Bar!
+Foo = _struct({
+    n = _t("i32"),
+})
diff --git a/metafang/cm/ex02.decl b/metafang/cm/ex02.decl
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d695e33
--- /dev/null
+++ b/metafang/cm/ex02.decl
@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+// Declarations only version of Cm (like mojo/protobuf? not sure)
+
+// assume special receiver (as opposed to smalltalk/objC style message passing)
+//    -- actually, on second thought, this has nothing to do with dispatching (and smalltalk is single dispatch)
+//    -- (no touching multiple dispatch since that's equivalent to reinventing a new language)
+// overloading discouraged, because runtime has to do extra work dispatching
+// declare functions outside, with `this` keyword marking receiver
+// - in C, func -> prefixed with reciever type, 1st arg is reciever pointer
+// - in C++, func -> member function
+// - lua (or whatever else), reciever type correspondingly
+
+Foo {
+    data
+}
+
+// C: mangling
+// C++: overloading
+// Lua: generate binding with type detection based dispatcher
+fn some_function(this: Foo, arg: i32)
+fn some_function(this: Foo)
+
+// alternative: use S-expression, get rid of parsing step?
diff --git a/metafang/cm/ex03.cm b/metafang/cm/ex03.cm
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..417799f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/metafang/cm/ex03.cm
@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+// Hypothetical, fully ledged version of Cm, at compile time, using a superset of the runtime language
+// with macros, and an escape hatch into native code (C or whatever)
+
+// Language structurally, a bit like Nim:
+// - the scripting language itself
+// - macros, which are functions from language itself operating on special AST values at compile time
+// - (NEW) native escape hatch, kind of literate programming style, expanding into native program source code at compile time
+
+// So the compile procedure is as follows:
+// - build interpreter (native source code) from source
+// - init interpreter
+// - load program source code, evaluate to produce
+//   - an environment image (bytecode of scripting constructs), and
+//   - native program source (text of things produced by native escape hatch, plus interpreter source code itself, plus auto generated bindings)
+// - build native program
+// And run procedure is:
+// - init interpreter (<- the PE/mach-o/ELF entrypoint here)
+// - init native program parts (<- i.e. the escape hatches don't generate an actual main() func, instead a customly named init() func that gets called by the generated machinery)
+// - load bindings
+// - load environment image
+// - run native program entrypoint
+// The order of native program entrypoint vs. environment loading might be reversed. Depending on how it makes sense.
+// Or maybe there will be 2 parts, the native program *init* and *start*. Former would be like the _mainCRTStartup() that initializes global variables, etc.
+
+// REQUIREMENT FOR NATIVE PROGRAM SOURCE:
+// Must be nicely readable.
+// We plan on completely reusing the traditional native program debuggers, e.g. GDB for debugging
+// The interpreter can then have its own debugging system
+// Problem: How to do mixed language debugging? like stepping into a native function, this is a lot of work/hacks to wrap on top of e.g. GDB
+// SIDE THOUGHT:
+// should bindings be baked into the environment image (i.e. design the bytecode format to include this? however it should be done; can't really imagine it now?)
+// or should they be generated e.g. `bind_function("func_name", &func_written_in_C);`?
+
+// REUSING EXSITING SCRIPTING LANGUAGE
+// We don't want to reimplement a language from scratch
+// Hacking e.g. PUC-Lua's parser? Kind of like Terra
+
+// terminology akin to Janet (from _Janet for Mortals_):
+// compile: evaluating the program sources to produce an environment
+// runtime: evaluating the environment
+
+