On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Marko Vojinovic <vvmarko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sunday 22 May 2011 02:23:36 Kevin J. Cummings wrote: >> On 05/21/2011 08:27 PM, JD wrote: >> > This is the sample pascal module: >> This is not PASCAL. It might very well be Object Pascal, which is a >> (slightly) different language. Different enough that the p2c compiler >> does not know about the extensions in Object Pascal, so I can see how it >> would fail. You need to find an Object Pascal to C translator.... > > AFAIK, an OO language cannot be mapped into a procedural one so easily. Maybe > you can find an Object Pascal to C++ translator, but I'm not so sure it's > translatable to just C. Not by a machine, anyway. ?? Sure it can. Or, at least, object languages that have their roots in procedural languages can be translated to C. C++ is just one example, although I'll admit that it turned/turns out to be harder than it first appeared when a lot of us thought we could just pervert or maybe extend the pre-processor. You do need a lot of runtime support (special libraries), and you end up with a lot of odd-looking function calls. The output of the translation step is by no means pretty, .... A lot of the peculiarities in both Java and C++ are derived from false paths taken in that adventure, near as I can tell. JD -- You have checked the wikipedia page on object pascal, right? Is there a reason you need C source output? -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
