Syn

Hi,

  I just wrote up a recent project which I think would be a natural
fit with LLVM. I'm curious if y'all see this working well or if you can see
any gotchas. Also potentially interested in finding someone comfortable
with LLVM who would like to collaborate:

Executive summary: What if the syntax and semantics of a programming
  language were specified in a library, rather than built into the
  language, and thus could be swapped or extended at will just like any
  other library?

  http://www.interstice.com/journals/Simon/20041021.1.h.html

  -Simon

This sounds ambitious and should be very interesting, if you can make it work. The closest example I have heard of is work on metaprogramming (or partial evaluation) by exposing a compiler's parse trees to the programmer, but I suspect that is more limited. I don't know specific references offhand but one of the papers on MetaOCaml (which takes a different approach) may have citations to such work.

--Vikram
http://www.cs.uiuc.edu/~vadve
http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/

How is this different from the LISP and scheme macro system? The
program source is available to the programmer at both compile and
run-time and may be operated on arbitrarily (transforming code, adding
code, removing code, specializing code, making new "primitives",
modifying other macros, etc). There is a reason for LISP's syntax, it
is so you can program arbitrary semantics on top of it.

MetaOCaml gives you runtime code generation but is not really a macro
system (in the LISP sense of adding/changing semantics of constructs).
Caml4p gives you access to the OCaml AST to do arbitrary compile time
things, but nothing at runtime. So both OCaml solutions are a bit more
limited than the general LISP mechanism.

Andrew