InterLanguage Connectivity Solutions

[Francois-Rene Rideau]

Mr. Nobody wrote:
> Probably it'd be even better if interface definition and interface
> representation could be separate things.
   Ahem, I'm not sure how you could separate interface definition
and representation, or if they are different.
Could you expand a bit on that ?

> The point is to have one
> language (IDL) to define interfaces,
> and then a representation language (PDL)
> to specify how your language represents things and
> what's the call convention.
   Oh, you mean that we have an abstract language,
and another language to specify
how abstract objects map lower-level ones ?
   I admit abstraction is great, but why need separate language ?
I would think it simpler to have a single language,
expressive enough to describe both abstract and low-level objects...

> That way you don't need to build a new
> stub generator for every new language you're going to support.
> I don't remember exactly but have read this idea in some recent paper...
   That, abstraction gives you, yes. But again, why another language ?
The two languages will have a lot in common, need to interface,
and mixing them can be particularly useful, as it would simplify the
meta-language (which could be itself, by reflectivity).

--    ,        	                                ,           _ v    ~  ^  --
-- Fare -- rideau@clipper.ens.fr -- Francois-Rene Rideau -- +)ang-Vu Ban --
--                                      '                   / .          --
Join the TUNES project for a computing system based on computing freedom !
		   TUNES is a Useful, Not Expedient System
WWW page at URL: "http://www.eleves.ens.fr:8080/home/rideau/Tunes/"