[<<][staapl][>>][..]
Tue Mar 8 16:46:18 EST 2011

Compiler not in module?

Maybe I have it all backwards.  What if the compiler is something that
is fed a configuration (an app link script), and this configuration is
a racket module?

The thing is this: the compilation is really just another stage, so
why is it not abstracted as such?

Currently the target words definition needs some state in the main
module.  How did this work again?


Ok. I get it.  Each project has a list of non-instantiated macros that
are then tied together later.

Problem: `words', `variables', ... are macros defined in terms of
signatures, so they need to be part of the signatures.  Move
label-unit.ss to sig.ss

How to have a signature depend on another signature, i.e. such that
the macros defined in the signature can refer identifiers from another
signature?

HMM.. that doesn't work so well.
This really needs combining.

I need a different approach as this is just a shot in the dark..

  Q: Why do I end up with macros depending on units in the first place?

It seems that a "not fully specified compiler" doesn't really agree
well with separate compilation.  At least from that perspective it at
least makes sense that I'm not able to express what I want.

In other words: definition of target words only makes sense once the
compiler is fully specified.




[Reply][About]
[<<][staapl][>>][..]