At 04:57 PM 9/18/00 +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > As for the language we implement perl in (and thus ultimately need to
> > translate to the compiler-target language), I'm thinking of something like
> > Chip's PIL. (Or PIL itself--I've not actually seen it)
>
>Is there any information on PIL available anywhere?
I've mail into Chip to see if we can get what he'd already done, but I've
not heard back from him--I assume he's busy with stuff.
> > Basically the
> > macro/tracking translator from hell that'll automagically generate header
> > files, provide all the permutations of vtable functions, and suchlike
> things.
>
>Doesn't this run a significant danger of leading us straight back
>into the perl5 problem of making debugging of the source code more
>or less impossible?
Not necessarily. It does leave us with the problem of writing source in one
language and debugging it in another, but at least we'll be able to look at
the real C source and see what happens. What gets fed to the C compiler
won't be heavily macro-ized--the PIL processor will take care of that for us.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
