Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uunet!mcsun!ukc!strath-cs!cs.glasgow.ac.uk!kh
From: kh@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Kevin Hammond)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.functional
Subject: Re: Intermediate Codes for Functional Languages
Message-ID: <7185@vanuata.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>
Date: 10 Dec 90 11:31:48 GMT
References: <1316@ucl-cs.uucp> <3054@skye.cs.ed.ac.uk>
Reply-To: kh@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Kevin Hammond)
Organization: Comp Sci, Glasgow Univ, Scotland
Lines: 16

In article <3054@skye.cs.ed.ac.uk> nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk writes:
>In article <1316@ucl-cs.uucp>, D.Parrott@cs.ucl.ac.uk writes:
>
>I would guess (although I don't know for sure) that these schemes are
>biased towards lazy, pure functional languages - the mention of
>graph reduction above implying this. 

True for FLIC, but wrong for Dactl.  Dactl is a *very* general 
graph-rewriting language which supports, but does not require, lazy
evaluation.  See my thesis/book for examples of compiling eager
(and lazy and semi-lazy) SML into Dactl.  We have also used Dactl for
compiling Hope+, Common Lisp, and various logic languages.

Kevin
-- 
This Signature Intentionally Left Blank.	E-mail: kh@cs.glasgow.ac.uk