Yes, but does it hurt? My understanding is that you are using a
transformation tool anyway. Personally I would say that a lower level
description is a perfect match for an FSM, which would also give you more
freedom to implement the characterics of a higher level language. If the
intermediate language is already at a fairly high level, anything derived
from that probably soon faces the problem of the lowest common denominator.
There are decompilers available for CIL that typically generate C# code. As
a start, one could look at them to see how they deal with the code
generation.
I have not looked at Colm yet, but some time ago I played with txl. Txl
seems to be more suitable for text based transformations. Working with CIL
probably asks for implementing sequences of tree transformations at a binary
level until you arrive at something that can easily be printed out as native
source code.
This way one could easily support native looking C++, Lisp, or FORTRAN 77
(not really). CIL byte code is more or less language independent.
I would have a personal interest in this kind of low level stuff, so I could
contribute more than usual.
jg
_______________________________________________
ragel-users mailing list
ragel-users@complang.org
http://www.complang.org/mailman/listinfo/ragel-users
