[ragel-users] additional plans for 7.0

ragel-user at jgoettgens.de ragel-user at jgoettgens.de
Fri Mar 8 11:21:50 UTC 2013

Yes, but does it hurt? My understanding is that you are using a 
transformation tool anyway. Personally I would say that a lower level 
description is a perfect match for an FSM, which would also give you more 
freedom to implement the characterics of a higher level language. If the 
intermediate language is already at a fairly high level, anything derived 
from that probably soon faces the problem of the lowest common denominator.

There are decompilers available for CIL that typically generate C# code. As 
a start, one could look at them to see how they deal with the code 

I have not looked at Colm yet, but some time ago I played with txl. Txl 
seems to be more suitable for text based transformations. Working with CIL 
probably asks for implementing sequences of tree transformations at a binary 
level until you arrive at something that can easily be printed out as native 
source code.

This way one could easily support native looking C++, Lisp, or FORTRAN 77 
(not really). CIL byte code is more or less language independent.

I would have a personal interest in this kind of low level stuff, so I could 
contribute more than usual.


ragel-users mailing list
ragel-users at complang.org

More information about the ragel-users mailing list