"Greg Comeau" <comeau@panix.com> wrote in message
news:f9m1md$he1$1@panix1.panix.com...
> In article <4avvi.3295$i85.2527@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>,
> JohnQ <johnqREMOVETHISprogrammer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>"Greg Comeau" <comeau@panix.com> wrote in message
>>news:f9lroo$rek$1@panix1.panix.com...
>>> In article <TvUui.1424$3x.23@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
>>> JohnQ <johnqREMOVETHISprogrammer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>I've heard "translation phases" in here before, but I don't remember
>>>>or know if they actually put names on all of them. As in: translation
>>>>phase 1, preprocessing.
>>>
>>> The closest it really comes to is mentioning preprocessing. The rest
>>> is really dealing with the semantics of things, revolving names not
>>> linking per se, syntax analysis but not how to scan or lex per se
>>> (I'm not saying that right, but hopefully the point comes though),
>>> and so on. This way, it leaves translation open to other options beyond
>>> traditional "compiling".
>>
>>So there is no list of translation phases then (right?). I have the draft
>>standard, is the high level view of the phases discussed somewhere that
>>you
>>know of and can point me to? If it's scattered all over the document
>>without
>>overview though, that disuades me from diving into it. (I think you are
>>saying that it is scattered).
>>
>>If I feel "ambitious" I'll open the pdf and skim through it looking for
>>relevant passages.
>
> See section 2.1

Thank you. I'll try to procrastinate there instead of "you have 30 minutes
left on your account with 'hotbabe online''".

>
>>Tell me this though, if you know: are the phases purposely not defined to
>>give implementations more leeway? As in, "anything can happen between
>>ingesting the source code and putting out the resulting obj file".
>
> The phases are defined, just not the way you think :)

Just tell me. It's not my "specialty". I won't buy it if I don't know how it
works (yeah, I know, I'm not the target market).

> Otherwise, yes,
> that's part of what "leaves translation open" involves.

OK. I don't like definitions. I think that way because a lot of things are
not define-able. This is tech stuff, and it can be defined and I won't
accept it being of importance. Ever.

You asked. I answered.

John