Related articles |
---|
[4 earlier articles] |
Re: Which target language do I choose? toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl (Toon Moene) (1998-07-20) |
Re: Which target language do I choose? conway@cs.mu.OZ.AU (1998-07-20) |
Re: Which target language do I choose? albaugh@agames.com (1998-07-20) |
Re: Which target language do I choose? mark@msm.cam.ac.uk (1998-07-24) |
Re: Which target language do I choose? cts@bangkok.office.cdsnet.net (1998-07-26) |
Re: Which target language do I choose? henry@spsystems.net (1998-07-27) |
Re: Which target language do I choose? lkrupp@netONE.com (Louis Krupp) (1998-07-30) |
From: | Louis Krupp <lkrupp@netONE.com> |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
Date: | 30 Jul 1998 23:08:51 -0400 |
Organization: | Rocky Mountain Internet - 1(800)-900-RMII |
References: | 98-07-109 98-07-123 98-07-149 98-07-173 |
Keywords: | C, portable, C++ |
Mark Manning for ftp wrote:
<snip>
> In BCPL, the expression primary:
>
> table <value1>, <value2>, ... <valueN>
>
> returns a static vector of N words initialised so that the first
> word is value1, the second value2, and so on. value1 .. valueN must
> all be evaluable at compile time.
<snip>
I wouldn't rule out C++. Keep it simple - don't use templates or RTTI
- and you might get the portability you need.
I wrote something that translated a subset of Visual Test (OK, it's a
lot like BASIC) to C++. I used C++ classes to model Visual Test data
types (like extendable arrays), and C++ let me intersperse
declarations and statements, just like Visual Test.
I have to tell you that (1) I did use templates, although I could have
done without them, and (2) my only target was GNU C++. But I spend a
lot of time porting C++ code, and I think there is a portable subset.
Louis Krupp
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.