Mail Archives: djgpp/2001/03/07/07:06:34
Rudolf Polzer <rpolzer AT web DOT de> wrote:
> Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de> schrieb Folgendes:
[...]
>> By nature, C is not a very interpreter-friendly language. Elements
>> that cause this include the preprocessor, complicated data structures,
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> maybe...
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> QBasic, an _OLD_ BASIC interpreter, supports them.
Up to and including pointers, dynamic memory allocation, 11 basic
numeric datatypes, and unions? I don't recall my short time of QBasic
coding very well, but I don't think it had all those.
>> I'd recommend a text book on compiler construction and the
>> comp.compilers newsgroup (they deal with interpreters, too, despite of
>> the name).
> Why a C interpreter?
I don't know. The OP didn't provide any rationale.
But the real question would be: if an interpreter, why one for C, of
all all possible languages?
--
Hans-Bernhard Broeker (broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de)
Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.
- Raw text -