Re: transpiling to low level C

On 16/12/2024 20:39, Janis Papanagnou wrote:

On 16.12.2024 19:37, bart wrote:

On 16/12/2024 17:12, Janis Papanagnou wrote:

On 16.12.2024 00:53, BGB wrote:

[...]
>
Pretty much all higher level control flow can be expressed via goto.

>
A 'goto' may be used but it isn't strictly *necessary*. What *is*
necessary, though, that is an 'if' (some conditional branch), and
either 'goto' or recursive functions.

>
You would do away with just about the simplest feature of any language,
and insist users emulate intra-function branching via function calls?

 Why are you, yet again, and still, making up nonsensical suppositions!
 

>
I'd like to see your design of IL that doesn't have branching! I guess
it would also need closures and/or continuations. I suspect you either
don't quite understand what an IL is for, or forgot that's what this is
about.

 Why are you, yet again, and still, making up nonsensical suppositions!
 I wasn't commenting on any "IL",

The subthread was about ILs.

nor on any "emulation". I also didn't
restrict my view to any specific machine model (as you have obviously
been doing).
 You can still see what I was commenting on in the single sentence that
I quoted in my post. (No more and no less.) - If you have anything to
say (without any nonsensical suppositions), concerning the quote and
my response, feel free to make another try.

In that case I've no idea what you were trying to say.
When somebody says that 'goto' can emulate any control structure, then clearly some of them need to be conditional; that is implied.
Your reply suggested they you can do away with 'goto', and use recursive functions, in a scenario where no other control structures need exist.
OK, if this is not for an IL, then it's not a language I would care for either. Why tie one hand behind your back for no good reason?

If you want to talk about "IL" or "assembly" search another target for
discussing your ideas.
 

So what was your proposal about?