WARNING: XL is a work in progress. Even if there are some bits
and pieces that happen to already work, XL is presently not suitable
for any serious programming. Examples given below may sometimes simply not
work. Take it as a painful reminder that the work is far from finished,
and, who knows, as an idea for a contribution.
See HISTORY for how we came to the present mess, and
Compiler status for information about what is
expected to work, and Compiler overview for a
quick overview of the compiler internals.
XL is an extensible programming language designed to accomodate a
variety of programming needs with ease. Being extensible means that
the language is designed to make it very easy for programmers to adapt
the language to suit their needs, for example by adding new
programming constructs. In XL, extending the language is a routine
operation, much like adding a function or creating a class in more
traditional programming languages.
As a validation of this bold claim, XL has a single fundamental operator,
the definition operator,
which you write [Pattern] is [Implementation
, where] [Pattern]
is
a program pattern, like X+Y
, and [Implementation]
explains how to
translate that pattern, for example Add X, Y
.
Everything that is built-in in most other programming languages, from
basic data types to arithmetic to conditionals to loops is provided by
the standard library in XL. You can replace these constructs if you
want, or add your own. Adding a new kind of loop is not more difficult
in XL than adding a function, and it uses the same syntax.
For more information, please consult the
XL handbook,
also available in asciidoc format and
PDF format
WARNING This documentation, like the compiler, is work in progress
and presently extremely messy, incomplete and inaccurate.
A program computing the factorial of numbers between 1 and 5 would be
written as follows:
0! is 1
N! is N * (N-1)!
for I in 1..5 loop
print "The factorial of ", I, " is ", I!
As a testament to its extensible nature, fundamental operations in XL
are defined in the standard library, including operations that would
be implemented using keywords in more traditional languages. For
example, the if
statement in XL is defined by the following code:
if [[true]] then TrueClause else FalseClause is TrueClause
if [[false]] then TrueClause else FalseClause is FalseClause
if [[true]] then TrueClause is TrueClause
if [[false]] then TrueClause is false
Similarly, the while
loop is defined as follows:
while Condition loop Body is
if Condition then
Body
while Condition loop Body
The standard library also provides implementations for usual
operations. For example, if you evaluate 1+3
, this is done through a
definition for +
on integer
values that looks like the following
(where ...
denotes some implementation-dependent code):
X:integer + Y:integer is ...
Two dialects of XL further demonstrate the extensibility of the language
```xl
import Slides
slide "A simple slide example",
* "This looks like some kind of markdown language"
* "But code makes it powerful: your mouse is on the " & position
position is
if mouse_x < 0 then "left" else "right"
```
The examples above use the new syntax in XL, with
is
as its definition
operator. Older variants of the language used->
instead. If
you downloaded a pre-built binary of Tao3D, chances are that you need
to replaceis
with->
for the code above to work as intended.
```xl
WORKER is "worker.mycorp.com"
MIN_TEMP is 25
MAX_TEMP is 55
invoke WORKER,
every 2s,
reply
display temperature
display Temp:real is
print "The temperature of ", WORKER, " is ", Temp
```
The present branch,
bigmerge
, is an ongoing effort to reconverge
the various dialects of XL. At the moment, it should pass most of
the ELFE-level tests, although this is not actively tested. Getting
it to support Tao3D is somewhat more difficult and may take some time.
If you are familiar with other programming languages, here are a few
things that may surprise you about XL.
if
is a keyword. In XL, it's just a name.XL has one fundamental operator, is
, the definition operator.
This operator can be read as transforms into, i.e. it transforms the
code that is on the left into the code that is on the right.
pi is 3.1415926
words is "xylophage", "zygomatic", "barfitude"
abs X is if X < 0 then -X else X
X ≠ Y is not X = Y
0! is 1
N! when N > 0 is N * (N-1)!
A in B..C is A >= B and A <= C
X * 1 is X
X + 0 is X
loop Body is Body; loop Body
type complex is polar or cartesian
type cartesian is cartesian(re:number, im:number)
type polar is polar(mod:number, arg:number)
adder N is (X is N + X)
add3 is adder 3
// This will compute 8
add3 5
my_map is
0 is 4
1 is 0
8 is "World"
27 is 32
N when N < 45 is N + 1
// The following is "World"
my_map 8
// The following is 32
my_map[27]
// The following is 45
my_map (44)
// An (inefficient) implementation of a generic 1-based array type
type array [1] of T is
Value : T
1 is Value
type array [N] of T when N > 1 is
Head : array[N-1] of T
Tail : T
I when I<N is Head[I]
I when I=N is Tail
A : array[5] of integer
for I in 1..5 loop
A[I] := I * I
min X is X
min X, Y is { Z is min Y; if X < Z then X else Z }
// Computes 4
min 7, 42, 20, 8, 4, 5, 30
In short, the single is
operator covers all kinds of declarations
that are found in other languages, using a single, easy to read
syntax.
XL has no keywords. Instead, the syntax relies on a rather simple
recursive descent
parser.
THe parser generates a parse tree made of 8 node types. The first four
node types are leaf nodes:
Integer
is for integer numbers such as 2
or 16#FFFF_FFFF
.Real
is for real numbers such as 2.5
or 2#1.001_001_001#e-3
Text
is for text values such as "Hello"
or 'World'
. Text canName
is for names and symbols such as ABC
or **
The last four node types are inner nodes:
Infix
are nodes where a named operator separates the operands,A+B
or A and B
.Prefix
are nodes where the operator precedes the operand, e.g.+X
or sin X
. By default, functions are prefix.Postfix
are nodes where the operator follows the operand, e.g.3%
or 5km
.Block
are nodes with only one child surrounded by delimiters,(A)
, [A]
or {A}
.Of note, the line separator is an infix that separates statements,
much like the semi-colon ;
. The comma ,
infix is traditionally
used to build lists or to separate the argument of
functions. Indentation forms a special kind of block.
For example, the following code:
tell "foo",
if A < B+C then
hello
world
parses as a prefix tell
, with an infix ,
as its right argument. On
the left of the ,
there is the text "foo"
. On the right, there is
an indentation block with a child that is an infix line separator. On
the left of the line separator is the if
statement. On the right is
the name world
.
This parser is dynamically configurable, with the default priorities
being defined by the xl.syntax file.
Parse trees are the fundamendal data structure in XL. Any data or
program can be represented as a parse tree. Program evaluation is
defined as transformation of parse trees.
XL can be seen as a functional language, where functions are
first-class entities, i.e. you can manipulate them, pass them around,
etc:
adder X:integer is (Y is Y + X)
add3 is adder 3
add5 is adder 5
print "3+2=", add3 2
print "5+17=", add5 17
print "8+2=", (adder 8) 2
However, it is a bit different in the sense that the core data
structure is the parse tree. Some specific parse trees, for example
A+B
, are not naturally reduced to a function call, although they are
subject to the same evaluation rules based on tree rewrites.
The XL parse tree is designed to represent programs in a way that
is relatively natural for human beings. In that sense, it departs from
languages such as Lisp or SmallTalk.
However, being readable for humans requires a few special rules to
match the way we read expressions. Consider for example the following:
write sin X, cos Y
Most human beings parse this as meaning write (sin(X),cos(Y))
,
i.e. we call write
with two values resulting from evaluating sin X
and cos Y
. This is not entirely logical. If write
takes
comma-separated arguments, why wouldn't sin
also take
comma-separated arguments? In other words, why doesn't this parse as
write(sin(X, cos(Y))
?
This shows that humans have a notion of expressions
vs. statements. Expressions such as sin X
have higher priority
than commas and require parentheses if you want multiple arguments. By
contrast, statements such as write
have lower priority, and will
take comma-separated argument lists. An indent or { }
block begins a
statement, whereas parentheses ()
or square brackets []
begin an
expression.
There are rare cases where the default rule will not achieve the
desired objective, and you will need additional parentheses.
Another special rule is that XL will use the presence of a space on
only one side of an operator to disambiguate between an infix or a
prefix. For example:
write -A // write (-A)
B - A // (B - A)
When you pass an argument to a function, evaluation happens only when
necessary. Deferred evaluation may happen multiple times, which is
necessary in many cases, but awful for performance if you do it by
mistake.
Consider the following definition of every
:
every Duration, Body is
loop
Body
sleep Duration
In that case, we want the Body
to be evaluated every iteration,
since this is typically an operation that we want to execute at each
loop. Is the same true for Duration
? Most likely, no.
One way to force evaluation is to give a type to the argument. If you
want to force early evaluation of the argument, and to check that it
is a real value, you can do it as follows:
every Duration:real, Body is
loop
Body
sleep Duration
Like many functional languages, XL ensures that the value of
variables is preserved for the evaluation of a given body. Consider
for example:
adder X:integer is (Y is Y + X)
add3 := adder 3
In that case, adder 3
will bind X
to value 3
, but then the
returned value outlives the scope where X
was declared. However, X
is referred to in the code. So the returned value is a closure which
integrates the binding X is 3
.
Work items for the XL compiler (will be turned into GitHub issues)
import
, use
or both (import
doing theuse
bringing the referenced expression in scope).->
to is
as the definition operatortype Pattern
to matching Pattern
type X is Y
module X with Y
or to Copy(...) is blah
scope.Foo
andscope Foo
in the language. Deal with (scope) foo
, etc.for
loop using scope injection[[true]]
). This is issue #10.type
typeT1 or T2
), as well as and
and not
.Derived like Base
).lifetime
values.own
and ref
types.in
, out
, inout
types.is
operator.1.20.5
not parsed as (1.2).5
->
to is
(for Tao3D importing)syntax
statements from imported files-show
option)-style
option and .stylesheet
filesnative.h
-O0
or -i
)extern
C syntax)native.h
FFI to interpretererror
and compile_error
evaluation rules in interpretermatching
prefix instead of type
-O2
)Simplistic compiler that does only run-time type analysis
- [X] Fast compiler functionally similar to what was used in Tao3D
- [ ] Find strategy to re-connect it to Tao3D
native.h
for building FFI-B
or -emit_ir
)xl -B ... | llc -filetype=asm
)-llvm-foo
)make-it-quick
)opt
, debug
, release
and check
install
install
alltest
script, make check
)make check
with macOS Catalina DYLD_LIBRARY_PATHThe interpreter / compiler recently went through a rather heavy
merge of several incompatible branches. As a result, it inherited
the best of the various branches, but is overall quite broken.
There are actually several, somewhat incompatible versions of
the language, some of which reside in different binaries, some
in the primary binary.
The primary binary resides in the src
directory. It is written
in C++, and there is currently no real plan to self-compile it,
although there are plans to use it as a basis for a self-compiling
compiler bootstrap someday.
That primary binary contains a single scanner and parser for the
XL language, but three different ways to evaluate it, which are
instances of the C++ Evaluator
class. These three ways to evaluate
XL are selected using the -O
option.
-O0
or -i
selects an interpreter. This interpreter is
essentially similar to what used to be the ELFE implementation
of the language, i.e. a very small implementation that performs
evaluation using parse tree rewrites. It sort of works, passes
most tests with make check
, and is overall sane, if a bit slow
(similar to bash
in my testing). It can be used for example
as an extension language for your application, and does not draw
much in terms of dependencies. You would add your own vocabulary
using simple-to-write "modules". See the Makefile
for examples.
That part is the only one I can advertise as possibly useful.
In particular, it correctly runs the examples in the demo
directory,
which are the older ELFE demos, i.e. distributed programming
from a single source code.
-O1
selects the FastCompiler
, which is basically an
adaptation of the compiler used in the Tao3D program, with
the intent to allow the master
branch of XL to be able to
support Tao3D again without major incompatibilities. It generates
machine code using LLVM, but the generated code is relatively
inefficient because it manipulates the parse tree. For example,
an integer value is always represented by an Integer
pointer,
so there is always an indirection to access it. Also, while
forward-porting that compiler to a version of the compiler that
had dropped it, I broke a number of things. So under repair,
and not currently able to support Tao3D yet.
-O2
and above select the Compiler
class, which is an
ongoing attempt at implementing XL the way I always wanted to,
using type inference to generate efficient code. Presently, the
type inference is so badly broken that it's likely to reject
a number of very valid programs, including the basic factorial
example. I have hope, though. At some point, that implementation
was able to compete with C on relatively simple programs, but
only with a lot of type annotations. I'm trying to achieve the
same result without the type annotations. We're getting there.
Like -O1
, -O2
output uses LLVM to generate machine code, but
that time, it's good machine code.
If you think 3 implementations is bad, wait. There is more.
There is a Bytecode
class that is yet another evaluator
that attempted to generate a bytecode so as to accelerate
interpreted evaluation, without having to bring in LLVM and
all the risks associated with dynamic code generation (e.g. if
you use XL as an extension language). Unfortunately, that
bytecode experiment went nowhere. It's slow, ridden with bugs,
and has severely damaged other parts of the compiler. I can't
wait to expurge it from the compiler.
So now that's it, right? Well... No.
You see, the current XL started life as a "runtime" language
for the "real" XL. The original XL looked more like Ada,
and had very different type semantics.
See HISTORY
for all the gory details. Suffice it to say here that this
compiler resides in the xl2
directory (because, yes, it was
already version 2 of the language). One reason for me to keep
it is that it's the only version of the compiler that ever
came close to self-compiling it. So I keep it around to remind
myself of various neat tricks that XL made possible, like the
translate
instruction.
Now, you are really done, right? Well... There's one more.
See, I really want the compiler to self-compile. So in order
to prepare for that, there is a native
directory where I
store tidbits of what the future compiler and library would
look like. Except that this is really an exploratory scratchpad,
so the various modules are not even consistent with one another...
But ultimately, if everything goes according to plan, the C++
compiler should be able to compile native
in order to generate
a compiler that would compile itself.