Re: Compiler project

On Jan 16, 2010, at 9:58 PM, OvermindDL1 wrote:

> Has a compiler project been decided on?  Also, I think we should do
> what most compilers do, every element in the generated tree should not
> only have the information of what it is, but also the iterator range
> in the source location of the data that created it, and things higher
> in the tree contain the ranges of the things that are lower and so
> forth, this would vastly simplify error reporting, and error reporting
> is *always* a huge boon to compiled and scripting languages alike.  It
> is of course not necessary if we somehow end up generating the final
> LLVM bitcode directly from the representation, but if we do not, then
> good error reporting should be an absolute.  I think we could build
> the LLVM representation directly with a bit of work, just wonder which
> method is better...  Some languages, depending on what is chosen, will
> require post-tree visitation before LLVM generation, so that would
> require things for sure.

  Well I would think that the ast should not contain source code, but should be designed to produce [good] code. Now you are implying there is an error that creates a proper parse, otherwise it will not be necessary to post process the tree before
producing code, to find that error.   Assuming few corners there will be few if any such errors and then perhaps they can be handled via peg and the dynamic nature of spirit qi parsers.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Throughout its 18-year history, RSA Conference consistently attracts the
world's best and brightest in the field, creating opportunities for Conference
attendees to learn about information security's most important issues through
interactions with peers, luminaries and emerging and established companies.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsaconf-dev2dev