> c) imcc becomes a "middle" level language.
> I never meant it to be an assembler. In practice
> intermediate languages provide other constructs
> such as aggregate type definition that are not
> available in the assembler.
>
> type i : packed int[32]
> type r : record { foo : int, bar : string }
>
> This is not assembler. This is medium level
> computer language in my book. You could even
> see things like
>
> ..pragma classes_are_hashes
>
> or something that would tell the compiler that
> aggregates should be implemented as standard
> "Perl" hashes in this piece of code, whereas
> others might want "packed" aggregates with
> no runtime introspection capability.
>Now, this is interesting. I confess I was only thinking on dynamic perl-like languages, but I think you have some secret plans.. But, this features don't change the point about the fact that infix notation doesn't make the job of the language compiler easier (neither it makes it harder) and is a duplicate feature once we have direct access to parrot ops. > > But I'm willing to invent and develop another language. And it should be a > lot richer than > just an assembler with a register allocator > and spiller. :) > Don't forget optimitzations. That's where the real fun is.. :) -angel
