On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Ben Kloosterman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Interesting comment on this very issue and some of the benefits of 2 phase > . > > http://compilers.iecc.com/comparch/article/94-10-101 > Nice legacy reference! This morning in the shower another reason occurred to me: legacy languages. Early languages like FORTRAN and COBOL have positional constraints governing where tokens may appear. The most obvious of these is that "C" in column 7 in legacy FORTRAN means that the rest of the row is a comment. I think it's now generally agreed that we're done with punch cards. While I'm not inclined to feel overly constrained by these languages 45+ years later, there is *some* merit to being able to parse them for analysis and transition purposes. What this mainly tells me is that we really want it to be *possible* for the tokenizer to be a separate phase. It's not that big a deal, in the end. It actually saves me some work if we declare that the tokenizer should be seperable. shap
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
