On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 08:04:25PM -0500, Austin Seipp wrote:
Excerpts from Justin Bailey's message of Thu Sep 04 17:00:58 -0500 2008:
Looking at the package, I think would be pretty painful though. It seems I'd have to build the AST by hand,
The AST Language.C defines for C is actually fairly regular once you wrap your head around it - I got it to generate working programs that I could compile in approximately an hour after looking through nothing but the documentation, essentially.
The AST is very 'raw' though: I found that defining some simple functions for things like just creating a global variable, creating declarations and the like cut down on overall AST size tremendously (although hints of the AST types/constructors were still around, naturally.)
Here's the example I put on HPaste a few days ago:
You'll notice that the actual shim you're looking at - with the help of the defined functions - is actually fairly small, and those functions help out with those *a lot.* That was the first thing I wrote with it though, so the functions could probably be further generalized and abstracted.
Nice.
On that note (although a little OT,) does anybody think it would be nice to have a higher level library designed specifically around emitting C that uses Language.C? A lot of repetetive stuff can be cut down considerably, I think.
That sounds great to me. I'd love to see something like this with some handy classes, so that I could write my haskell code using Int and/or Integer rather than CInt. e.g. change mkConst (ConInt i) = CConst $ CIntConst (cInteger i) undef mkConst (ConChar c) = CConst $ CCharConst (cChar c) undef mkConst (ConFloat f) = CConst $ CFloatConst (readCFloat f) undef mkConst (ConStr s) = CConst $ CStrConst (cString s) undef to class CConst i where mkConst i :: ??? instance CConst Int instance CConst Double etc. David