On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 05:28:59PM -0800, Allison Randal wrote: > Patrick R. Michaud wrote: > > > >I'll gladly add PAST::Stmt and PAST::Exp nodes if that's at all > >useful. Just because they're there doesn't mean a compiler has to > >use them. :-) > > Well, I came to the conclusion that PAST::Exp was useless a while ago. > (Its entire point of existence was as a dummy node to be factored out at > the PAST-to-POST stage.) I do think PAST::Stmt is useful, but I want to > take a stab at refactoring it out first.
Excellent. Let me know when/if you want PAST::Stmt added in, and any attributes you want it to have. > Oh, I should have mentioned that the patch I sent in to remove the dummy > 'root' rule from the POST::Grammar was part of what was making Punie > work (because Punie's top-level node isn't a PAST::Block, it's a > PAST::Stmts). I can refactor that out, but in this case it seemed to > make more sense to refactor the compiler tool (since the other languages > still worked with the change). POST really needs to have a POST::Sub at the top of the tree, so the purpose of the 'root' rule in POST::Grammar is (going to be) to create a POST::Sub for the tree if the lower transformations don't happen to return one. I'll add that code shortly, and then things should work properly even if the top-level node in PAST isn't a PAST::Block. Pm
