Path: csiph.com!xmission!news.snarked.org!news.linkpendium.com!news.linkpendium.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED.news.iecc.com!nerds-end
From: rugxulo@gmail.com
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Subject: Re: Parsing partial sentences
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 16:32:38 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: Compilers Central
Lines: 48
Sender: news@iecc.com
Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com
Message-ID: <17-04-026@comp.compilers>
References: <17-04-001@comp.compilers> <17-04-023@comp.compilers> <17-04-024@comp.compilers>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Injection-Info: miucha.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="47662"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com"
Keywords: parse
Posted-Date: 29 Apr 2017 09:00:10 EDT
X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com
X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com
X-FAQ-and-archives: http://compilers.iecc.com
Xref: csiph.com comp.compilers:1865

Hi,

On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 8:15:18 PM UTC-5, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>
> If we allow Pascal to be extended with a macro preprocessor,
>
> I believe I could design a system for translating C to Pascal which
> handles some macros, translating them to Pascal macros.  Even some
> macros that "break" syntactic boundaries, such as "list_for_each (var,
> list) { block }".

Doug Comer wrote MAP (macro preprocessor) in 1978-9 for CDC Pascal.
(Pascal Users Group [PUG], Pascal News #17, March 1980, pages 30..40)

Free Pascal already has a preprocessor (and simple macros):
http://www.freepascal.org/docs-html/prog/progch2.html#progse4.html

> I don't believe such a project has any value beyond getting
> a pat on the back from another developer; I wouldn't spend any
> time on such a thing.

Well, in fairness, regarding your posts in comp.lang.misc three
years ago ("Wirth-ian languages"), you don't seem sympathetic
overall. I do think you underestimate their continued relevance.

> The end result might well be rejected by some
> Pascal users, due to requiring the extended dialect, whether on
> ideological grounds,

In fairness, with so many Pascal compilers and dialects and deviances
from the standards, I think most "Pascal" users are already
accustomed to various quirks.

> or on practical issues with tooling (being able to get the
> preprocessor running in a given Pascal development environment).

Keep in mind that several Pascal-to-C converters already exist (of
varying quality). It might be wiser to look at what's already been
done. I can find at least three. (Not quite the reverse but similar.)

Not sure what you mean about tooling, but FPC is quite portable, so
that isn't the main problem here.

I don't wish to discourage the OP. Certainly it's not an easy task.
Here's yet another document I stumbled upon years ago that may help:

http://www.knosof.co.uk/ctop.ps