🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Sep28.183322.29254@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, hasker@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Rob Hasker) writes:
|> All you need is a parser which translates the concrete syntax to the abstract
|> syntax (i.e., Lisp-like notation), and an "unparser" to translate back.  This
|> way the user gets the benefit of being able to write readable code and the
|> rewrite engine doesn't have to parse anything.  This approach works very well
|> for the transformation system on which I'm working (Uday Reddy's Focus system).
|> 
|> Rob

We do something similar in SISAL (Streams and Iteration in a Single
Assignment Langauge for the curious).  We maintain a functional
intermediate language (IF1) below the programmer source level.  We can
actually do code optimizations and other code re-writes and then
``uncompile'' the result back to SISAL!

Again, we get the advantages of human readible, functional code
without losing the advantages of a fully functional backend.

-- 
Pat Miller                            I have many opinions, but they
patmiller@llnl.gov                      generally aren't humble ones