Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!cbosgd!ucbvax!SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU!KURKURE
From: KURKURE@SUSHI.STANFORD.EDU (Uday Kurkure)
Newsgroups: net.lang.mod2
Subject: Re: One Pass compiler
Message-ID: <12243907247.41.KURKURE@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Fri, 3-Oct-86 15:11:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: Sushi.12243907247.41.KURKURE
Posted: Fri Oct  3 15:11:16 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 4-Oct-86 12:30:35 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 44



>	Actually, you can note the fact that whatever type the symbol has
>    must be compatable with how it is being used, and check that against
>    the actual declaration when you see it.  For example, if I see a
>    function call:

>  intvar := funct( 5.0, "test", 7 );

>   I can note that funct must return a type that can be assigned to an int,
>   and accept a floating point, char array, and integer argument;  then,
>   when I see a declaration of funct, I can check against this usage, and
>   determine whether the previous usage was correct.


     What happens if the intvar is also declared forward ?

     Such things can lead to lot of bookkeeping. Consider a
     following statment and lot of occurrences of the similar
     statements.

     .
     .
     a1 := a1 * f1( x,y,z )+ a2 + a3 + f3............* x100
     .

     ..

     VAR
       x100: type;
       .
       .
       .
       .
       a1: type100


    etc etc.
    

   This could be reasonably difficult to do with one pass.

                                 ..Uday
-------