On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 11:07:55PM -0000, Jonathan Worthington wrote: > "Leopold Toetsch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On Nov 14, 2005, at 0:02, Jonathan Worthington wrote: > > > >>* I'm thinking of a PIR syntax along the lines of this:- > > > >The discussion goes forth and back, like all other discussion we already > >had WRT syntax, months and years ago. > > > What syntax we parse now (and then do nothing with) isn't flexible enough. > Aside from fixing that, the syntax doesn't really matter *that* much, since > it's going to be generated by compilers anyway.
I just read through the thread and here's my initial impressions. This information that get's squirrelled away seems to be lexical in nature as far as the PIR goes, i.e., #line 10 ... code that implements line 10 of the HLL ... #line 11 ... code that implements line 11 of the HLL ... #line 12 ... etc ... Also, it seems that mostly this is analogous to a hash. In the above example, "line" is a key, "10" is a value. So, in this respect using #name value Seems just fine :-) The interpretation of the "property" (just reusing the name from subversion) names is up to whoever generates/consumes them, so they could be anything #language perl #version 6 #file hello.p6 #line 1 #source say "hello world\n"; #chapter 4 #verse 7 #scoundrel Bill Sikes ... PIR that implements the HLL ... etc. -Scott -- Jonathan Scott Duff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
