Re^2: Is an aXML compiler possible?

[Logicus]

This node falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.

[Corion]

As your language explanation is very lacking, it is not possible to construct a compiler for your language. Unless the target language is known and defined in a formal sense, it makes little sense to write a compiler for it. Your language has ambiguities in very essential spots, and you keep on faffing about how these ambiguities could be resolved. That shows that not even you have a firm grasp on your language.

As you were instructed in the earliest posts, please learn about compilers first.

I'm not going to repeat the comments I made since your first posts, since you are obviously not going to read them, or take the action recommended in them.

[ikegami]

Your language has ambiguities in very essential spots, and you keep on faffing about how these ambiguities could be resolved.

As buggy as his language may be, I haven't seen any indication that it can't be codified.

Furthermore, I haven't seen any ambiguities, just nasty limitations.

Even if there are ambiguities, it wouldn't be anywhere as ambiguous as Perl is — try answering whether "{" starts a hash constructor or a block after "map" — and Perl is compiled.

[ikegami]

I think, and I'm by no means certain, that Corion's suggestion was that the same compiler that handles the initial code could have the output of a plugin run through it as well. A sort of JIT compiler I guess.

Compiling code every time it's executed might technically qualify as being compiled, but it has none of the advantages of being compiled. It could even slow things down. It is still interpreted.