On Fri, 31 May 2002 06:06:27 -0700, Don Syme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The ILX manual itself is not as complete as it needs to be. In >particular it needs to be specified exactly how these constructs get >compiled down to IL - for the moment I've decided to let the >implementation define the translation. I would expect that the easiest >thing for now is to use ILX as an implementation rather than a >specification. Thanks for the clarification. For political reasons, I cannot use Microsoft's ILX implementation (Portable.NET is part of the GNU Project, with all of the issues that that entails). So, I will wait for the specification to become more complete before looking into it further. >Personally I think Abstract IL is actually a more exciting "thing" in >the short-medium term. Am I correct in saying that Abstract IL is a set of libraries that run on top of a regular/generic CLR to provide IL-IL functionality? i.e. no modifications are required to the existing engine? What I'm trying to isolate is which parts I need to implement as basic infrastructure in my CLR to provide support for functional languages, and which parts are merely libraries implemented on top of the basics. Cheers, Rhys.
