Kevin Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > John Tobey wrote: > > > > Thanks, Joshua. Quickie summary. Implementations: one[1] semi-free > > (non-DFSG-compliant) complete. Others in progress. > > > > Why not specify as a C extension: I'm still looking for that. > > > > -John > > Technical answer: C-- has lots of features that would be difficult to > hack into a C compiler. Tail calls, continuations, good GC support, > data layout control, and the list continues. C also has lots of cruft > that C-- doesn't need. I disbelieve. > Real answer: C-- is being designed and implemented by functional > programming guys who probably don't want to hack around in C compilers > written in C. Notice that the two prominent C-- implementations, > Quick C-- and Fermin Reig's C-- compiler are both written in functional > programming languages: Quick C-- in Objective CAML, and Fermin's > compiler in Standard ML. I'm not sure about this one. My odds-on favorite answer: Picture some M$ hackers telling their supervisor they are working on some GCC enhancements. -John > -Kevin
