|extensible compilers firstname.lastname@example.org (1998-03-18)|
|Re: extensible compilers email@example.com (ICHISUGI Yuuji) (1998-03-20)|
|Re: extensible compilers firstname.lastname@example.org (1998-03-20)|
|Re: extensible compilers email@example.com (Bruce Stephens) (1998-03-22)|
|extensible compilers firstname.lastname@example.org (1998-03-22)|
|Re: extensible compilers email@example.com (N. D. Culver) (1998-03-24)|
|RE: extensible compilers firstname.lastname@example.org (Zhukov, Victor) (1998-03-30)|
|Re: extensible compilers email@example.com (N. D. Culver) (1998-04-03)|
|From:||"N. D. Culver" <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||3 Apr 1998 17:00:06 -0500|
|Organization:||Atlantic Biomedical Engineering|
|References:||98-03-212 98-03-215 98-03-262|
Zhukov, Victor wrote:
> Also, there are difficulties with pre-coding all possible 'semantic
> categories' into the language, which is supposed to handle not only
> a priori cases.
I'd sure like to see a histogram of 'new computer language semantics'
by year since 1950.
> More detailed info you can get from MS Research site at:
It looks like these fellows are tending to give up on the idea of
separate compilation which I think is a nice trend. Yet, at Microsoft
you can bet that they will stick the COM/DCOM model somewhere into
their implementation and end up with n... levels of replicated
interfaces in order to access each new 'intention'.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.