Re: Chill vs. Pascal sets

[Jeffrey A Law <law at cygnus dot com>]

  In message <19990930234154.E216@esmeralda.gerwinski.de>you write:
  > David Starner wrote:
  > > 
  > > > If these problems cannot be solved, there is no point using
  > > > `SET_TYPE' nodes for Pascal sets.  In that case, we would have
  > > > to introduce a `LANG_TYPE' and need a hook in `expand_expr()' to
  > > > handle values of that type.  I suspect that such a hook exists
  > > > already, but I did not find it yet.
  > > 
  > > That would be a shame as it would make new languages that needed to 
  > > use similar sets (e.g. Modula 3) duplicate the Pascal code.
  > > 
  > > > Anyway, I would prefer to have 
  > > ? 
  > 
  > Ah - sorry, I forgot to complete this.
  > 
  > Anysay, I would prefer to have Chill and Pascal use the same
  > SET_TYPE, thus having binary compatibility etc.  It's cleaner,
  > and it makes the routines handling set tree nodes easier to
  > read.
I think we all agree that Chill, Pascal and the Modula family ought to
try and share the same SET implementation if at all possible.

jeff