5 ms·
At first blush, I'd say this similar to Coffeescript in that it's meant to be javascript shorthand also.
by s3graham 16y ago
At first blush, I'd say this similar to Coffeescript in that it's meant to be javascript shorthand also.
- endian 16y agoExactly. It's purely syntax to syntax. Thanks for the confusion -- I've made the first paragraphs more clear about PJ's scope. Title changed: s/compiler/syntax cross-compiler/ EDIT: title changed again
- s3graham 16y agoI guess defining what you consider syntax features vs. Python language/runtime would be appropriate for the docs. ie. 2 * * 1024? print object.__mro__? slice objects? __call__? etc.
- endian 16y agoHere's the decision procedure: If there's no collateral damage and the JS is clear (e.g. 28 --> Math.pow(2, 8)): do it. If there's no proper way to express the JS in Python (e.g. instanceof and typeof keywords): do it If it's really important (only "print" and "self"): do it Else: DON'T These few special cases that mess with your code are all mentioned in a section on the the main page. And you can easily remove them from the transformations if you want.
- scott_s 16y agoThat's not a term I've ever heard, and "cross compiler" tends to imply something else: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_compiler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_compiler I would call what you have done a source-to-source compiler: it translates from one target high-level language to another. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-to-source_compiler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-to-source_compiler