Re: Syntax directed compilation

Barry Kelly <barry.j.kelly@gmail.com> wrote:
> I recall, a long time back on this group, people pointing out that
> languages supporting redefinable or user extensible grammars have
> never taken off, and that like heavy armour on insects, it's a feature
> more notable of the extinct than the extant. The argument against them
> seems to be "too much power, users write their own languages and then
> can't understand one another's". That always seemed like a weak
> argument to me, and in this day and age of DSLs and indirect program
> rewriting in dynamic languages, I wonder if it just hasn't been done
> correctly yet.


I agree, there are macro languages that allow detailed control over
type checking rules, code generaton, etc.. I wrote one which runs on
DOS and will also compile for non 80X86 systems called ML1 (which is
not ML/1). It allows you to define the reule for types, the output
code, code optimization (local optimization), etc. It's a macro
compiler, and it's written in its' own language. What it does is load
scripts that define the commands and as the commands are encountered
the scripts (macros) are called to process them. It has support for
object oriented language definitions. It comes with a script that
defines a structured Low Level BASIC like language. You can design
your own control structures, custom types, data coercion, etc.


The default runtime control structure has a Exit command that allows
the equivalent of a forward GOTO to anywhere, without labels.


You can DL it and use it for no-fees (commercial use included)
at: www.ml1compiler.org


The compiler itself is only a 45K executable.


Steve

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