From: Vesa Karvonen (vesa_karvonen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-03 14:06:47
>I think the only really "un-cool" thing about your language is the number
>of tweaky abbrevs. It for me it cuts the readability a lot to truncate
>5-letter words by two letters.
I like short names..., but I have renamed the constructs to use
>I'd be interested. I've had trouble understanding some of my template
>I'm hoping that what you've done my help.
I have uploaded the prototype ML interpreter to the Files section. You can
find it at here:
The test should compile (it'll take a long time) directly on g++ version
2.95.4 20011002 (Debian prerelease) - with a sufficiently high template
recursion depth. I have not tested the code on other compilers and it is
possible that it is not 100% ANSI.
My main motivation was to find a convenient way to express algorithms.
Interpretation makes this technique very slow. Some speed-up could be
obtained by further optimizations, but probably not enough.
>This reminds me strongly of Spirit subrules. Were you inspired by Joel's
>work on Spirit?
No, the language constructs were borrowed mostly from Lisp and Standard ML /
Ocaml. The idea of building an interpreter to allow convenient syntax popped
to my mind when I read a couple of messages on the Boost list regarding the
strict evaluation problem. I have recently worked on a couple of small
compilers and interpreters for functional style languages.
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk