On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 10:52:13AM -0800, Allison Randal wrote: > Patrick R. Michaud wrote: > > > >Also, out of curiosity, which high-level constructs in punie aren't > >working? > > What I've found so far are: > > - The top-level AST structure is off: my temporary hack to replace > PAST::Stmt and PAST::Exp with PAST::Stmts is producing extra temporary > variables in the PIR output. I need to refactor the top few tiers of > transformation rules, and maybe refactor the Punie parser grammar.
I'll gladly add PAST::Stmt and PAST::Exp nodes if that's at all useful. Just because they're there doesn't mean a compiler has to use them. :-) > - Comma lists are also handled completely differently. PAST itself doesn't know anything about comma lists -- it just thinks of comma as being an operator like any other operator. In perl6 the infix:, operator has 'list' associativity, so that it ends up with a variable arity. However, I recognize that some languages might need to keep the notion that commas are left-associative with arity 2, so perhaps we need some form of 'list' pasttype that would combine the operands together somehow? > So, it's not a matter of missing features (aside from PAST::Label), it's > just a matter of adapting the code to a different way of thinking. I'll > work through these in the next few days and let you know what I find as > I go. That'd be great. I'm working on some refactors of HLLCompiler and PAST right now, I don't think any of these will break existing code. Pm
