Re: [Chicken-users] Fwd: Newbie question - Converting SKILL/Scheme to C.

[Matthew Welland]

I have done this for some small SKILL programs before. If you have "c-style" (*yuck*) SKILL you will probably save some time by loading it into a cadence tool and using "pp" to convert it back to sane mode. It has been many years since I tried it but I'm pretty sure that works.

SKILL is really a variant of lisp and you might have less translation to do if you use one of the lisp to c compilers. Being rather attached to scheme I myself have never tried that.

Good luck.

Matt
-=-

On Tuesday 01 September 2009 11:09:37 pm Yaron Kretchmer wrote:
> Thanks Nicholas
> The fact that the C code resulting from the translation is not humanly
> readable is not important to me. I only intend to compile the C code
> and link it against other libraries.
>
> /* */ style comments not being supported is a minor problem.
> Infix not being supported is a slightly bigger deal, but manageable.
>
> Thanks! I'll keep on experimenting.
>
> Regards
> Yaron
>
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 11:04 PM, Nicholas "Indy" Ray<address@hidden> wrote:
> > So, Don't confuse the fact that Chicken compiles to C with being able
> > to translate to C. The result of the Chicken compiler is doubtful to
> > be maintainable by hand. If you run csc -t on a source file that
> > actually compiles, you will see what sort of C Chicken generates.
> >
> > If you're still trying to get the SKILL program to compile in Chicken
> > a fact brought up on the wikipedia page you linked will be
> > problematic:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadence_SKILL#Syntax
> >
> > SKILL seems to allow C style function calling and infex notation for
> > some operators. Chicken Scheme (And most Schemes only) use prefix
> > notation.
> >
> > So, function calls written as:
> >
> > Func(A B)
> >
> > will have to be rewritten as:
> >
> > (Func A B)
> >
> > And operators written as
> >
> > X + Y
> >
> > will have to be rewritten as
> >
> > (+ X Y)
> >
> > Additionally, for comments /* */ is not supported, Scheme comments
> > start with a ; and go on till end of line.
> >
> > There are many other problems with the syntax of the small code
> > snippets you linked, I suggest getting aquainted with standard Scheme
> >
> > Indy
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 8:11 PM, Yaron Kretchmer<address@hidden> wrote:
> >> Hi Ray.
> >> My apologies.  Let me explain some more.
> >>
> >> I have a program written in a language called SKILL, which is a
> >> variant of Scheme. SKILL is used in semiconductor design to describe
> >> the layout of transistors, and is described briefly in
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadence_SKILL
> >>
> >> I am interested in translating this SKILL program to C, and thought I
> >> could use Chicken to accomplish that. I've installed and ran Chicken
> >> on the various SKILL programs I have, and some of the trivial programs
> >> compiled OK, whereas some of the more complex examples failed. This
> >> might be related to the Syntax differences between SKILL and Scheme,
> >> or is related to my incorrect usage of Chicken.
> >>
> >>
> >> Is the above within the confines of this group? If it is, I'll send
> >> the code that was causing me problems, and would appreciate any help,
> >>
> >> Best regards
> >> Yaron
> >>
> >> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 6:45 PM, Nicholas "Indy" Ray<address@hidden> wrote:
> >>> Sorry, But I don't think the HTML was the major problem with the
> >>> email.
> >>>
> >>> First of all it's not clear what you are trying to do.
> >>>
> >>> Second of all without any code to see what's generating you're errors
> >>> it's hard to diagnose.
> >>>
> >>> Also things like
> >>>
> >>> "(() if (opptapObj->tap == "None" then return (nil) else return
> >>> (t)))"
> >>>
> >>> and
> >>>
> >>> "/* comment
> >>> and more comment
> >>> end of comment */"
> >>>
> >>> and
> >>>
> >>> "prefix = substring(dev 1 2)"
> >>>
> >>> Looks nothing like Scheme code, much more like C code. Are you sure
> >>> the code is Scheme at all??
> >>> Additionally this isn't exactally a good mailing list for converting
> >>> code from SKILL to C as this is a Chicken Scheme mailing list, and
> >>> unless Chicken is some how involved, neither C or Skill seems to
> >>> apply.
> >>>
> >>> Indy
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Yaron Kretchmer<address@hidden> wrote:
> >>>> Here's a resend with no HTML :P
> >>>> ------------------------------- begin
> >>>> resend-------------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi All.
> >>>> Just joined the group, so forgive my newbie questions :)
> >>>>
> >>>> I have some legacy code written in SKILL (a variant of Scheme) which
> >>>> I'm trying to convert to C.
> >>>>
> >>>> I tried compiling the code , and got several different error
> >>>> message, and was wondering whether somebody could suggest a solution
> >>>>  for each
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> =======================begin
> >>>> problems========================================== Problem 1 -
> >>>> substring
> >>>> *) The code uses the "substring" function which the compiler seems
> >>>> to have a problem with. So lines like
> >>>> prefix = substring(dev 1 2)
> >>>> create compiler error message like
> >>>> Syntax error: illegal atomic form
> >>>>
> >>>>        ()
> >>>>
> >>>>        Expansion history:
> >>>> ...
> >>>>        <syntax>                (dev 1 2)       <--
> >>>>
> >>>> problem 2 - multi-line comments
> >>>> *) The compiler doesn't recognize multi-line comments
> >>>> /* comment
> >>>> and more comment
> >>>> end of comment */
> >>>>
> >>>> problem 3 - Unknown object methods
> >>>> *) The code refers to object methods/properties  through the use of
> >>>> the "->" operator. The compiler doesn't like.
> >>>>  prog( ()
> >>>>    if( opptapObj->tap == "None" then return(nil) else return(t))
> >>>>  ) ;prog
> >>>>
> >>>>  generates error
> >>>> Syntax error: illegal atomic form
> >>>>
> >>>>        ()
> >>>>
> >>>>        Expansion history:
> >>>>
> >>>>        ...
> >>>>        <syntax>                (() if (opptapObj->tap == "None" then
> >>>> return (nil) else return (t)))    <--
> >>>> ==================End
> >>>> problems===============================================
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks a lot!
> >>>> Yaron
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Chicken-users mailing list
> >>>> address@hidden
> >>>> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chicken-users mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users