|TeX syntax? email@example.com (Russell Shaw) (2007-02-08)|
|Re: TeX syntax? firstname.lastname@example.org (Rock Brentwood) (2021-04-04)|
|Re: TeX syntax? email@example.com (gah4) (2021-04-05)|
|Re: macros of yore, was TeX syntax? firstname.lastname@example.org (gah4) (2021-04-09)|
|Date:||Fri, 9 Apr 2021 18:39:39 -0700 (PDT)|
|References:||07-02-024 21-04-002 21-04-004 21-04-007|
|Injection-Info:||gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="39203"; mail-complaints-to="email@example.com"|
|Posted-Date:||09 Apr 2021 21:57:42 EDT|
On Friday, April 9, 2021 at 4:20:27 PM UTC-7, Rock Brentwood wrote:
> (His original aim is much more doable now, by the way, than in the 1980's,
> because the *forward* advancement of C from the 1980's to C99 actually entails
> a dramatic *simplification* of what's needed for a "cfront" like utility, and
> much of what went into the original is no longer needed, on that account. You
> can almost even write up a utility as a simple editor script, now! ... Except
> for exception-handling. Most people forget, translation is a *contravariant*
> function of source language - it simplifies when source language complexifies.
> So things become *more* doable, not less!)
I have recently been working with another macro processor from the 1970's,
which is written using a set of macros, and converted to standard Fortran 66.
Among others, the macros implement IF-THEN-ELSE structures and the usual
DO-WHILE and and DO-UNTIL loops.
I recently realized, though haven't done it yet, that I can rewrite the macros
to generate Fortran 90 structured if and looping constructs.
I did that some years ago with the MORTRAN macros, which also are designed
to generate standard Fortran 66 code.
But yes, it is interesting to look at what can be done with old programs
and modern tools.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.