On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:

> sergio masci wrote:
> 
> > If I understand you correctly what you are saying is that if the
> > compiler writer is already aware of the /standard/ library before he
> > starts writing the compiler AND the /standard/ library definition is
> > set in concrete just as the language definition is then the compiler
> > writer is able to use intimate knowledge of the /standard/ library
> > functions within the compiler without incorporating the code
> > generation of the /standard/ library functions within the compiler
> > but instead leaving this implemented external to the compiler proper
> > (so that these functions can be written by someone else and code
> > generated at compile time). 
> 
> Correct. 
> 
> I thought this all is basically understood when talking about standard
> libraries (that is, libraries with an interface that is part of the
> language standard).

Ok so I'm starting to get on the same page as you (I may not agree but at 
least I now understand how you are seeing things :)

Furthermore you seem to be saying that using a function call syntax rather 
than a verbose statement syntax (e.g. SQL) should be equally easy for the 
compiler to understand
e.g.
	A compiler should be able to interpret the following three 
	statemets as identical

(1)...	// function call syntax
	if( lt(x, 0), assign(y, 0), assign(y, x) )

(2)...	// C syntax
	if (x<0)
	{	y = 0;
	}
	else
	{	y = x;
	}


(3)...	// verbose syntax
	if x < 0 then
		y = 0
	else
		y = x
	endif

AND because the compiler should be able to "understand" functions as 
easily as other language statements that it is a convenient way to extend 
the language.

Could you please confirm this.

Friendly Regards
Sergio Masci
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist