Re: Two pass compiler for a language similar to Java

Joan Pujol <joanpujol@gmail.com> wrote in message news:04-09-089...
> > If you want an interpreter -it makes sense to go in for a 1-pass
> > compiler. Else, 2-pass is what one would use.
>
> I don't understand it. The language is the same if I interpret it or
> if I compile it, isn't it? You want to say that If I want to write an
> interpreter it's better to have a semantics that can be done in one
> pass? Or I'm missing something?
>
> A lot of thanks in advance,
> [I don't get it either, unless the idea is that the interpreter is unlikely
> to need as much type info known in advance as compiled code. -John]


I was referring to one of those visual interpreters (like Basic)
wherein you can modify text and the code would not have to be
re-compiled as the stuff gets interpreted line by line. It looks like
you can do a lot with 1-pass compiler (and the definition of a 'pass'
is rather flexible) -so my earlier statements are not entirely true.


regards
-kamal

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.