Actually my needs are simply to understand enough about Slang so as not to have
any major surprises when I subclass the CCodeGenerator.  I will need to test my
work, and one could say that the Interpreter and plugin classes are a sufficient
test.  However, if Slang has features or syntax not currently used by the
Interpreter, they might someday show up in a new version or in a plugin.  I
simply want to avoid having to rewrite my EpocCppCodeGenerator long after I have
forgotten how it works.  I have no intention of writing any Slang code myself -
I hope I haven't left such an impression.  I very much value (and follow) Bob's
and Tim's advice, and, of course, yours.  Thank you for contributing to my
project.

Ed

"Andrew C. Greenberg" wrote:

> At 9:23 PM -0500 1/23/01, Andrew C. Greenberg wrote:
> >At 9:34 AM -0700 1/23/01, Edward P Luwish wrote:
> >>Can anyone describe the subset?  For those of us who need to dink with the
> >>CCodeGenerator, it would be helpful to have, if not a formal syntax and
> >>semantics, at least some examples of what can NOT currently be translated
> >>(the Interpreter class has sufficient examples of what CAN).
> >
> >It is called Slang, and in view of your posting, it almost certainly
> >not close to what you want.  My chapter in the Squeakbook has a
> >survey of the syntax and a bit of background how Slang is used, but
> >I strongly suggest you take Bob and Tim's advices before spending a
> >lot of time on this.  Slang is *NOT* really  Smalltalk -- its an
> >(mostly) interpretable Smalltalk-like transliteration of imperative
> >C code, highly useful for facilitating the development of C-language
> >interpreters and plugins from a Smalltalk environment.
>
> Sorry, the URL is:
>
> http://coweb.cc.gatech.edu/squeakbook