[ragel-users] additional plans for 7.0

[Adrian Thurston]

You got it. Write out ragel implementations in some generic algol-like language, then translate that to the various languages that ragel supports. The coder writing the translator does not need to understand ragel semantics in depth, only the mapping from the intermediate language to the target language.

Adrian
------Original Message------
From: ragel-user at jgoettgens.de
Sender: ragel-users-bounces at complang.org
To: ragel-users
ReplyTo: ragel-users
Subject: Re: [ragel-users] additional plans for 7.0
Sent: Mar 9, 2013 4:13 PM

I see your point. I'd tend to think that the source code is unlikely to look 
like human written code anyway. So why not use to s.th that is closer to the 
machine (20 different branch instructions may even look cool). In a way one 
would always have to think in terms of s.th like an assembler language and 
the translations to a higher level language would be for practical purposes 
only.

Do you have s.th. like the following in mind? An abstract loop declaration 
could be mapped in C++ either to individual statements or s.th. that uses an 
STL algorithm (e.g. for_each). In a way there would be a bunch of higher 
level building blocks, maybe sometimes with more than 1 option for a single 
language. So the intermediate language would specify the algorithm 
essentially in terms of these building blocks.

jg 


_______________________________________________
ragel-users mailing list
ragel-users at complang.org
http://www.complang.org/mailman/listinfo/ragel-users


_______________________________________________
ragel-users mailing list
ragel-users at complang.org
http://www.complang.org/mailman/listinfo/ragel-users