On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 09:24 -0700, Eric Rannaud wrote: > BTW, this is another reason to keep the current syntax: it is much > easier to build a static analyzer for BitC with a lispish syntax than > with a C like syntax.
One cannot do any useful static analysis without full type information, nor should one attempt it on a program whose symbols fail to resolve. At that point you want to work on the AST, not the surface syntax, and the argument for *any* particular surface syntax evaporates. In response to the obvious objection, we've actually been careful to ensure that our AST encodes enough information to re-emit the input essentially unchanged (less comments). There are one or two bugs in this at the moment, but we definitely view those as bugs. shap _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
