Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!mucs!jk
From: jk@cs.man.ac.uk (John Kewley ICL)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.functional
Subject: Re: Intermediate Codes for Functional Languages
Message-ID: <1975@m1.cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: 14 Dec 90 17:29:44 GMT
References: <1316@ucl-cs.uucp> <3054@skye.cs.ed.ac.uk> <7185@vanuata.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>
Sender: news@cs.man.ac.uk
Reply-To: jk@cs.man.ac.uk (John Kewley ICL)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester UK
Lines: 17

In article <7185@vanuata.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> kh@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Kevin Hammond) writes:
>In article <3054@skye.cs.ed.ac.uk> nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk writes:
>
>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.

In fact, a Hope+ -> DACTL compiler has been written which could produce
either lazy or (eager?) DACTL (Is a language with lazy constructors and
strict functions eager, strict, semi-lazy, semi-strict?).
--
        J.K.
 
John M. Kewley, ICL, Wenlock Way, West Gorton, Manchester. M12 5DR
Tel:   (+44) 61 223 1301 X2138  Email: jk@cs.man.ac.uk / jk@nw.stl.stc.co.uk