Yes, but the expression trees have to follow a certain set of rules, AFAIK, which tend to be the sorts of things that dynamic languages look for. The DLR, perhaps not surprisingly, is really geared entirely towards the execution of those expression trees, not for coughing up compiled types.
Ted Neward Java, .NET, XML Services Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing http://www.tedneward.com > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:jvm- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Werner Schuster (murphee) > Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 9:45 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [jvm-l] Common compiler infrastructure? > > Charles Oliver Nutter wrote: > > > > As far as I know, DLR does nothing for type resolution across > > languages because it's...you know...dynamic :) > > > Haven't looked at DLR in a while, but it allowed language impls to > build > IL by building expression trees, > including handling all kinds of naughty business with debugger metadata > etc. > So at least that kind of boilerplate seems to be shared - which is > already miles ahead of what's shared in the JVM language world (ie. > nuthin'). > > Note: take with a grain of salt, as I said: been ages since I looked at > the DLR. > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "JVM Languages" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to jvm- > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/jvm-languages?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JVM Languages" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jvm-languages?hl=en.
