[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: *.mid vs *.midi
From: |
immanuel litzroth |
Subject: |
Re: *.mid vs *.midi |
Date: |
Sun, 18 May 2008 06:16:03 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.2 |
Quoting Hans Aberg <address@hidden>:
> C is composed of two languages: the preprocessor, to which #include
>
> belongs, and merely composes the files into one compile unit, and
> the
> C compiler, which processes that. So the C language itself does not
>
> have any #include directive.
Implementation issue. There is no requirement for a separate preprocessor, and
the fact that compilation happens in stages is a feature of most if not all
programming languages.
> This setup makes it impossible for the
> C
> language to deduce module dependencies the way Haskell does, > which
>
> causes the complicated setup of the compiler. And of course, in
> Haskell, one needs to tell which modules to import.
C doesn't have modules, so it is definitely impossible for it to "deduce module
dependencies". And again you are saying that Haskell deduces module
dependencies which is not something I read in the Haskell Standard. It uses
modulo some renaming the same compilation model:
"A multi-module Haskell program can be converted into a single-module program
by giving each entity a unique name, changing all occurrences to refer to the
appropriate unique name, and then concatenating all the module bodies".
The "make" feature is something that could implemented in a C/C++ compiler
easily by requiring each #include "xxx" to map to
a library xxx.o or xxx.lib in abscence of which you just compile xxx.cc in some
search path.
Immanuel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Find out how you can get spam free email.
http://www.bluebottle.com/tag/3
- Re: *.mid vs *.midi, (continued)
- Re: *.mid vs *.midi, Karl Hammar, 2008/05/15
- Re: *.mid vs *.midi, Michael David Crawford, 2008/05/16
- Re: *.mid vs *.midi, Graham Percival, 2008/05/16
- Re: *.mid vs *.midi, Bertalan Fodor (LilyPondTool), 2008/05/16
- Re: *.mid vs *.midi, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2008/05/17
- Re: *.mid vs *.midi, Hans Aberg, 2008/05/17
- Re: *.mid vs *.midi, Karl Hammar, 2008/05/17
- Re: *.mid vs *.midi, Hans Aberg, 2008/05/17
- Re: *.mid vs *.midi, immanuel litzroth, 2008/05/17
- Message not available
- Re: *.mid vs *.midi, Hans Aberg, 2008/05/17
- Re: *.mid vs *.midi,
immanuel litzroth <=
- Message not available
- Re: *.mid vs *.midi, Hans Aberg, 2008/05/18
- Re: *.mid vs *.midi, immanuel litzroth, 2008/05/18
- Message not available
- Re: *.mid vs *.midi, Hans Aberg, 2008/05/18
- Message not available
- Re: *.mid vs *.midi, Hans Aberg, 2008/05/18
- Re: *.mid vs *.midi, immanuel litzroth, 2008/05/19
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Re: *.mid vs *.midi, Hans Aberg, 2008/05/19
- Re: *.mid vs *.midi, immanuel litzroth, 2008/05/19
- Message not available
- Re: *.mid vs *.midi, Hans Aberg, 2008/05/19
- Re: *.mid vs *.midi, Mats Bengtsson, 2008/05/19
- Re: *.mid vs *.midi, Hans Aberg, 2008/05/19