Andrew Pennebaker schrieb:
Yes, there is a distinction to be made between an interpreted
environment, say, GHCi, and instantfpc, which is simply a compiler
wrapper just advanced enough to let you ./ your Pascal programs.
But hiding away the compilation step from the user does not turn a
Alberto Narduzzi schrieb:
Recursion is for other things, such as expression parsing etc. where
you don't (and neither possibly can't) actually know how deep may the
nesting.
Well, I would advice only to use it if you *know* the maximum nesting
depth. Otherwise it can crash easily.
A good
On 16 Oct 2011, at 11:42, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
But hiding away the compilation step from the user does not turn a compiler
language into an interpreter language. There is no benefit in doing so. You
can simply compile your programs and then use the executable in your scripts.
Where is
Well, I would advice only to use it if you *know* the maximum nesting
depth. Otherwise it can crash easily.
I was not focusing on the problems that could arise using recursion, my
point simply was that in this case, use of recursion was a no-need.
Of course when using recursion you _MUST_
On Sun, 16 Oct 2011, Jonas Maebe wrote:
On 16 Oct 2011, at 11:42, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
But hiding away the compilation step from the user does not turn a compiler
language into an interpreter language. There is no benefit in doing so. You can
simply compile your programs and then use
There are plenty who do believe it's convenient to hide compilation in the
background--the users of instantfpc. Syntax for shebangs in fpc would bridge
instantfpc and traditional Pascal code. You would no longer have to treat
instantfpc code as a special case, because fpc wouldn't mind the
Andrew Pennebaker andrew.penneba...@gmail.com hat am 16. Oktober 2011 um 19:53
geschrieben:
There are plenty who do believe it's convenient to hide compilation in the
background--the users of instantfpc. Syntax for shebangs in fpc would bridge
instantfpc and traditional Pascal code. You
