Related articles |
---|
[4 earlier articles] |
Re: .NET Compiler for Interactive Fiction tbandrow@unitedsoftworks.com (2003-03-09) |
Re: .NET Compiler for Interactive Fiction neelk@alum.mit.edu (Neelakantan Krishnaswami) (2003-03-14) |
Re: .NET Compiler for Interactive Fiction lars@bearnip.com (2003-03-14) |
Re: .NET Compiler for Interactive Fiction david.cornelson@iflibrary.com (David A. Cornelson) (2003-03-14) |
Re: .NET Compiler for Interactive Fiction marcov@toad.stack.nl (Marco van de Voort) (2003-03-14) |
Re: .NET Compiler for Interactive Fiction tbandrow@unitedsoftworks.com (2003-03-16) |
Re: .NET Compiler for Interactive Fiction tbandrow@unitedsoftworks.com (2003-03-16) |
Re: .NET Compiler for Interactive Fiction lex@cc.gatech.edu (Lex Spoon) (2003-03-17) |
Re: .NET Compiler for Interactive Fiction david.cornelson@iflibrary.com (David A. Cornelson) (2003-03-17) |
Re: .NET Compiler for Interactive Fiction JeffKenton@attbi.com (Jeff Kenton) (2003-04-05) |
Re: .NET Compiler for Interactive Fiction joachim_d@gmx.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2003-04-13) |
From: | tbandrow@unitedsoftworks.com (tj bandrowsky) |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
Date: | 16 Mar 2003 23:59:58 -0500 |
Organization: | http://groups.google.com/ |
References: | 03-02-125 03-02-147 03-03-043 03-03-049 |
Keywords: | design, practice |
Posted-Date: | 16 Mar 2003 23:59:58 EST |
That's an interesting idea, but I think he's doing it more out of a
sense of intellectual curiousity than a desire to simply use the
"best" of existing tools. That is, he wants to know how to write a
compiler.
If anything, exposing the .NET framework is probably going to be the
least of his challenges. Object discovery and interface negotiation
are fairly straightfoward in the Framework. More or less in .NET,
once you can expose one object you can expose them all.
> That's not quite what I'm suggesting. I am suggesting writing a macro
> package that embeds a domain-specific sublanguage into C#. Then you
> don't need to do any work exposing the .NET framework to the user,
> because you can always fall back to C# if the DSL doesn't cover the
> case you want.
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.