Where do I download Comeau compiler.

[Miroslaw Makowiecki]

Where can I download Comeau compiler as a trial version?
Thanks in advice.

[James Kanze]

On Aug 10, 9:32 am, "JohnQ" <johnqREMOVETHI Sprogram...@yah oo.com>
wrote:

"Greg Comeau" <com...@panix.c omwrote in message

news:f9******** **@panix2.panix .com...

In article <l2wui.27099$RX .3...@newssvr11 .news.prodigy.n et>,
JohnQ <johnqREMOVETHI Sprogram...@yah oo.comwrote:

>"Alf P. Steinbach" <[e-mail] wrote in message
news:13******* ******@corp.sup ernews.com...
...
You're saying that it's "compiling" rather than just "translatin g"..
Yes. If you don't have the Dragon book, get it.
I don't need it. I'm not building a compiler.

Ok, but you asked about some of this stuff, and the "Dragon Book"
is normally considered a solid reference on some of this stuff.

I knew someone was going to say that. And I already knew what I was going to
say in return: I'd rather know what the C++ standard has to say about those
things. I've heard "translatio n phases" in here before, but I don't remember
or know if they actually put names on all of them. As in: translation phase
1, preprocessing.

John

[James Kanze]

On Aug 10, 9:32 am, "JohnQ" <johnqREMOVETHI Sprogram...@yah oo.com>
wrote:

"Greg Comeau" <com...@panix.c omwrote in message

news:f9******** **@panix2.panix .com...

In article <l2wui.27099$RX .3...@newssvr11 .news.prodigy.n et>,
JohnQ <johnqREMOVETHI Sprogram...@yah oo.comwrote:

>"Alf P. Steinbach" <[e-mail] wrote in message
news:13******* ******@corp.sup ernews.com...
...
You're saying that it's "compiling" rather than just "translatin g"..
Yes. If you don't have the Dragon book, get it.
I don't need it. I'm not building a compiler.

Ok, but you asked about some of this stuff, and the "Dragon Book"
is normally considered a solid reference on some of this stuff.

I knew someone was going to say that. And I already knew what
I was going to say in return: I'd rather know what the C++
standard has to say about those things. I've heard
"translatio n phases" in here before, but I don't remember or
know if they actually put names on all of them. As in:
translation phase 1, preprocessing.

The standard doesn't really speak of "compiling" formally. It
specifies how a C++ is translated to an executable file, then
executed. The translation has a certain number of steps;
classically, some of those have been considered "compiling" ,
where as the last has been considered "linking". But modern
systems tend to blur the distinction, and most systems today
also use a single command line for the works. Thus, for
example, g++ is not what would have been called a compiler when
I was learning computer science; it's a driver program which
invokes different phases of the compiler and/or the linker,
depending on command line options, etc.

Depending on the context today, "compiling" can mean what you do
to go from one or more .cc files to an executable binary, or
what you do to go from a single .cc file to a single .o/.obj
file, with linking being a separate step (and I can't think of a
good, simple verb for "building a library"). Note that with
g++, I use the commands g++ and cl (under Windows) for both
compiling and linking, and with Sun CC, I use the command CC for
building a library as well (although I use ar with g++, and lib
with cl).

--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:james.ka. [e-mail]
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientier ter Datenverarbeitu ng
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, [phone]

[Greg Comeau]

In article <Tv************ **@newssvr25.ne ws.prodigy.net> ,
JohnQ <jo************ ***********@yah oo.comwrote:

>
"Greg Comeau" <co****@panix.c omwrote in message
news:f9******* ***@panix2.pani x.com...

>In article <l2************ *****@newssvr11 .news.prodigy.n et>,
JohnQ <jo************ ***********@yah oo.comwrote:

>>>"Alf P. Steinbach" <al***@start.no wrote in message
news:13***** ********@corp.s upernews.com...
...
You're saying that it's "compiling" rather than just "translatin g"..
Yes. If you don't have the Dragon book, get it.
I don't need it. I'm not building a compiler.

Ok, but you asked about some of this stuff, and the "Dragon Book"
is normally considered a solid reference on some of this stuff.

I knew someone was going to say that. And I already knew what I was going to
say in return: I'd rather know what the C++ standard has to say about those
things. I've heard "translatio n phases" in here before, but I don't remember
or know if they actually put names on all of them. As in: translation phase
1, preprocessing.

The closest it really comes to is mentioning preprocessing. The rest is
really dealing with the semantics of things, revolving names not
linking per se, syntax analysis but not how to scan or lex per se
(I'm not saying that right, but hopefully the point comes though),
and so on. This way, it leaves translation open to other options beyond
traditional "compiling" .
--
Greg Comeau / 4.3.9 with C++0xisms now in beta!
Comeau C/C++ ONLINE == http://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryitout
World Class Compilers: Breathtaking C++, Amazing C99, Fabulous C90.
Comeau C/C++ with Dinkumware's Libraries... Have you tried it?

[Greg Comeau]

In article <TG************ ***@newssvr25.n ews.prodigy.net >,
JohnQ <jo************ ***********@yah oo.comwrote:

>So, you're telling me that "compiling" = error checking + syntax checking +
semantic analysis + etc? I'd accept that. Then everything that happens after
that is translation. Translate to assembly or C or machine code or whatever.
Yes?

You're starting to loose me, but I'll try: compiling does include those
things, but compiling (in the case of compiling) is the translation act.
And yes, I guess it's valid to say that there are subtranslations
occuring within that sometimes.
--
Greg Comeau / 4.3.9 with C++0xisms now in beta!
Comeau C/C++ ONLINE == http://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryitout
World Class Compilers: Breathtaking C++, Amazing C99, Fabulous C90.
Comeau C/C++ with Dinkumware's Libraries... Have you tried it?

[JohnQ]

"James Kanze" <ja*********@gm ail.comwrote in message
news:11******** **************@ k79g2000hse.goo glegroups.com.. .
On Aug 10, 9:32 am, "JohnQ" <johnqREMOVETHI Sprogram...@yah oo.com>
wrote:

"Greg Comeau" <com...@panix.c omwrote in message

news:f9******** **@panix2.panix .com...

In article <l2wui.27099$RX .3...@newssvr11 .news.prodigy.n et>,
JohnQ <johnqREMOVETHI Sprogram...@yah oo.comwrote:

>"Alf P. Steinbach" <[e-mail] wrote in message
news:13******* ******@corp.sup ernews.com...
...
You're saying that it's "compiling" rather than just "translatin g"..
Yes. If you don't have the Dragon book, get it.
I don't need it. I'm not building a compiler.

Ok, but you asked about some of this stuff, and the "Dragon Book"
is normally considered a solid reference on some of this stuff.

I knew someone was going to say that. And I already knew what
I was going to say in return: I'd rather know what the C++
standard has to say about those things. I've heard
"translatio n phases" in here before, but I don't remember or
know if they actually put names on all of them. As in:
translation phase 1, preprocessing.

"The standard doesn't really speak of "compiling" formally. It
specifies how a C++ is translated to an executable file, then
executed. The translation has a certain number of steps;
classically, some of those have been considered "compiling" ,
where as the last has been considered "linking". But modern
systems tend to blur the distinction, and most systems today
also use a single command line for the works. Thus, for
example, g++ is not what would have been called a compiler when
I was learning computer science; it's a driver program which
invokes different phases of the compiler and/or the linker,
depending on command line options, etc."

"Depending on the context today, "compiling" can mean what you do
to go from one or more .cc files to an executable binary, or
what you do to go from a single .cc file to a single .o/.obj
file, with linking being a separate step (and I can't think of a
good, simple verb for "building a library"). Note that with
g++, I use the commands g++ and cl (under Windows) for both
compiling and linking, and with Sun CC, I use the command CC for
building a library as well (although I use ar with g++, and lib
with cl)."

See, now that's what I think of as "compiling" also: the traditional use of
the term. So, would you consider going from source code to an intermediate
form, doing semantic analysis and such along the way, compiling? (The
intermediate form being symbol tables and such).

John

[Greg Comeau]

In article <q6************ ***@newssvr25.n ews.prodigy.net >,
JohnQ <jo************ ***********@yah oo.comwrote:

>"James Kanze" <ja*********@gm ail.comwrote in message
news:11******* *************** @b79g2000hse.go oglegroups.com. ..

1. I wouldn't call something that translates from one high
level language to another a compiler. (Just like I wouldn't
consider cfront one). I'd call the components that do
translation (to intermediate form) that occurs before the C
code generation a compiler front-end.

Formally, you're probably correct, but practically, it comes out
to the same thing.

>How can you consider "the same thing" having to have 2 tools
installed rather than just one to get the same result?

"By not counting the number of tools? I must have about twenty
or thirty different tools installed on my Windows machine; if I
were to use it for actual development, I'd need quite a few
more. If I count each package as a "tool" on my Linux box, I'm
in the hundreds. One more or less doesn't mean that much."

That's a facetious argument. The window is that of compiling source code.
Pretend it's the last compile before packaging and deployment and not
everything from concept to purchasing shrink-wrapped sofware in a retail
store. But it's not worth talking about. If you think that exotic means of
compiling should be considered everywhere, all the time, so be it.

If it's an all encompassing carte blanche statement it probably is
pushing things, although there is still a point there.
However, chances are reasonable that even if you have a focused
look at things, you're using a multi-vendor solution, for instance,
a sub process which is invokes, or a library that is used, etc
(and yeah, I'm talking strickly about compiling).

>Me: Using 2 compilers in a chain is for very specialized, very
non-mainstream development scenarios.
You: No it's not.

It happens. Although I'm not sure that was that JK was saying,
although perhaps it was.

2. If by "better", you mean "better compliance with the
standard", well it would have to be an awfully critical need
for some feature that would cause one to go from a compiler to
a language-to-language translator.

Better can mean many things: less bugs, more optimization,
stricter standards compliance... Off hand, Comeau beats VC++ two
out of three there.

>But Comeau feed into VC++ (or g++), yes? It still seems like
you have all the issues with the platform compiler plus any
issues with the front end.

"It feeds C into VC++ or g++. Very old-fashioned C. C's been
around for a long time, is very stable and relatively simple.
I'd be very surprised if there were any serious bugs in the C
compiler of gcc or VC++. Where as with C++..."

I thought it was very compiler-specific C.

Actually it can be "old fashion" and is compiler-specific
while at the same time striving for some commonality.
Let's leave it at that.

Better can also mean portability. One of the strongest motives
I know for using g++ is that I have the same compiler on all of
my platforms.

>Though using different compilers does help check out your code better.
You'll probably write less portable code and have more bugs within the
safety of one compiler than if you were to build with many.

"That too, but what I was really thinking of is the idea of using
Comeau for all of the platforms. That way, you have the same
C++ everywhere. (In the Unix world, a number of places use g++
systematical ly just for this very reason. There are a number of
subtle differences between xlC and Sun CC, but g++ is the same
on both AIX and Solaris.)"

It just means that you are jobbing out the difference resolution to Comeau
instead of doing it yourself.

Partially, sure.

>Instead of dealing with differences in C++
implementation s, you're letting Comeau deal with differences in C
implementation s. Of course, doing it in C is an alternative also.

So is doing it in assembler then :)

Anyway, no, as JK would then be saying using the same C compiler
which is not the same thing as what you just said (at least as
I'm reading it).

Comeau offers the same advantage, with even better quality and better
standard compliance.

>But it's still apples and oranges if you ask me because Comeau
is not a "from source to executable" product. It seems like a
special-purpose product to use when you want to code in C++
but one or more of your target platforms doesn't have a C++
compiler. Yes?

"It's definitly not a "from source to executable" product.
Neither is g++, for that matter, at least not under Solaris
(where it uses the Sun linker). And that's certainly a
consideration. "

Comeau will get the code to something platform-specific but not
hardware-specific. That's why I consider it a "front end". Which begs the
question: "Why doesn't Comeau put a back end on it for each platform and
sell a "real" compiler?

Because we can leverage off "C being available everywhere"
and use it as a portable assembler so to speak. And since C
vendors have tailored to specific CPUs etc, in their "back ends"
and that is hard, well, why should we?

>"But as I said above, you typically need other
tools anyway, like a data base. And you probably won't find the
same "from source to executable" product available on all of
your target platforms. Using the same compiler front-end on all
of your platforms frees you from having to worry about
variations in the language the compiler understands, or in its
interpretati on of the standard."

Again, you're just trading C++ difference management for someone else doing
C difference management. Increasingly, that makes less and less sense
because compilers have evolved and will continue to do so. (Of course, what
I'd prefer is a "devolved" C++ to solve the problem instead of
masking/bandaiding it).

I don't believe that is what JK is saying. Let's say Comeau was
a native compiler. JK's comments still remain in full force.
Delegating to C may be what we're doing as an implementation detail
but it's a moot aspect to JK's point, at least as I'm currently seeking it.

>"And IMHO, that is the main argument for using Comeau,
professionally . If you're only concerned about one system, and
portability is not a concern, then the obvious solution is the
"native" compiler: VC++ under Windows, g++ under Linux, Sun CC
under Solaris, etc."

Nah, it's bad all around (note JohnQ jumping out of the hot oil): C++ should
be implementable. If it is so bad that one cannot trust that code can be
written to be compiled on any compiler, something else is VERY VERY wrong.
So no, making one C++ implementation "THE C++" is not a good answer. You may
want to note that I frequently suggest here that C++ is too complex,
over-kill etc., that a simpler language to implement is compelling, and that
your "stand" in this thread supports the basis for my quest quite well.

JK is not saying to make one implementation "THE C++".

>"(That's professionally, of course. I know more than a few
people who use Comeau on the side, because they want to
experiment with standard C++, and be sure that what they are
learning corresponds to the standard---with the hope, of course,
that as time goes on, more compilers will conform.)"

1. I think the importance of standard conformance is over-blown relative to
all development issues.

I don't hear anybody disagreeing with this.

>2. I understand why people "close to" a language would think that way or try
to make it that way.

I still don't hear anybody disagreeing.

>3. <something about C++'s complexity leading to it's obsolescence>

If C++ ceased to exist from today onward, it would be among one of
the most amazing successes in software/languages/etc. Saying otherwise
is just plain wrong.

Also, the demise of C++ has been hailed since its inception.
It has not happened. And the contrary happened, despite
poor initial marketing and many other obstacles. And yes,
it had many problems.

As to "language-to-language translator": Comeau is just using C
as a platform neutral intermediate representation.

>I don't think that is correct. I think it translates to
platform-compiler-specific C.

"That's true. But it's still a basic "format" that can be used
on just about every platform."

I don't think so. That's why I said 'platform-specific' C.

It's both. As above, let's leave it at that.

>It just all seems
really silly: translate to another HLL in a form that won't compile
everywhere without massaging it. Well, that was the same thing at the
get go with the C++ code!

Now, *that's* silly :)

>"I think you can choose, at least to some degree. (Under Linux,
it's gcc. And I don't think you have a choice there.)"

It's not really converting C++ to C, at least not to any C
you'd ever want to see.

>I don't see how the effects of using multiple compilers/tools
wouldn't be additive as far as the potential issues go.

"If you use Comeau, you get the potential issues of Comeau C++,
plus the potential issues of the native C compiler. If you use
the native C++ compiler, you get its potential issues.
Generally speaking, the first set is smaller than the second, at
least with regards to bugs and language issues."

I think a better approach is to know what the issues are and then code
around them.

Maybe I'm tired, but coding around something that can be automatic
seems contrary to what we're usually using computers for.

>To wait for the next version of the platform-specific compiler
or the next C++ standard when "things are ready for prime time".

Neither of these seems related to the discussion at hand,
or in any case, are true across the board, and so should shake
out no matter what the compiler or language.

>It's
just that Comeau abstracts one away from one set of the
issues. But who's to say they're better at it than you are?

"They're not just abstracting away one set of issues. You're
replacing the issues of your native C++ compiler with those of
Comeau plus the native C compiler. Typically, the native C
compiler has almost no problems, so it's Comeau C++ vs. the
native C++. And the people behind the Comeau compiler (which is
a port of the EDG front-end) are better than those behind just
about any other C++ compiler. Much better, usually."

Comeau is a very specialized tool, not in the same category as mainstream
compilers, IMO.

There is a bit of both.

>The applicability of the Comeau product is directly related
to the problem with the C++ language. I'd rather see the language fixed,
replaced or a new language. "Design for producibility" is a good engineering
concept for language designers also. Back to the drawing board?

I'd love to see a new and better language than C++.
It's a BIG drawing board. Do you have it ready yet? :)

>It appears to me that you'd have to be targeting a lot of
"weird" hardware where Comeau is and other C++ compilers
aren't, in or to be using the product. If all your platforms
had a C++ compiler or g++, you'd probably use those/that.

"If they all had a compatible C++ compiler, yes. I certainly
don't look for such a tool for C. But they don't. C++
compilers still vary greatly in how much of the standard they
implement, and how they interpret it."

Like I said, I can see where you would be more apt to worry about that than
most. In the short term, I think the appropriate action is to talk to the
compiler vendors when something is lacking. A language that can only be
implemented by very few companies, or just by companies for that matter, is
"not ready for prime time" or lacks "goodness"/quality.

But something of the opposite of that has always been the case with C++.
So I'm going to say that what you just said it categorically false,
at least as I'm understanding it.
--
Greg Comeau / 4.3.9 with C++0xisms now in beta!
Comeau C/C++ ONLINE == http://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryitout
World Class Compilers: Breathtaking C++, Amazing C99, Fabulous C90.
Comeau C/C++ with Dinkumware's Libraries... Have you tried it?

[JohnQ]

"Greg Comeau" <co****@panix.c omwrote in message
news:f9******** **@panix1.panix .com...

In article <TG************ ***@newssvr25.n ews.prodigy.net >,
JohnQ <jo************ ***********@yah oo.comwrote:

>>So, you're telling me that "compiling" = error checking + syntax checking
+
semantic analysis + etc? I'd accept that. Then everything that happens
after
that is translation. Translate to assembly or C or machine code or
whatever.
Yes?

You're starting to loose me, but I'll try: compiling does include those
things, but compiling (in the case of compiling) is the translation act.
And yes, I guess it's valid to say that there are subtranslations
occuring within that sometimes.

I made another post that more firmly describes how I'm thinking of the
process. So pick it up there if you want to and let this tangential
subthread end. (I actually refer to the stuff in this subthread there).

John

[Greg Comeau]

In article <T%************ *****@nlpi061.n bdc.sbc.com>,
JohnQ <jo************ ***********@yah oo.comwrote:

>
"James Kanze" <ja*********@gm ail.comwrote in message
news:11******* *************** @k79g2000hse.go oglegroups.com. ..
On Aug 10, 9:32 am, "JohnQ" <johnqREMOVETHI Sprogram...@yah oo.com>
wrote:

>"Greg Comeau" <com...@panix.c omwrote in message

>news:f9******* ***@panix2.pani x.com...

In article <l2wui.27099$RX .3...@newssvr11 .news.prodigy.n et>,
JohnQ <johnqREMOVETHI Sprogram...@yah oo.comwrote:
"Alf P. Steinbach" <[e-mail] wrote in message
news:13****** *******@corp.su pernews.com...
...
You're saying that it's "compiling" rather than just "translatin g"..
Yes. If you don't have the Dragon book, get it.
I don't need it. I'm not building a compiler.

Ok, but you asked about some of this stuff, and the "Dragon Book"
is normally considered a solid reference on some of this stuff.

>I knew someone was going to say that. And I already knew what
I was going to say in return: I'd rather know what the C++
standard has to say about those things. I've heard
"translatio n phases" in here before, but I don't remember or
know if they actually put names on all of them. As in:
translation phase 1, preprocessing.

"The standard doesn't really speak of "compiling" formally. It
specifies how a C++ is translated to an executable file, then
executed. The translation has a certain number of steps;
classically, some of those have been considered "compiling" ,
where as the last has been considered "linking". But modern
systems tend to blur the distinction, and most systems today
also use a single command line for the works. Thus, for
example, g++ is not what would have been called a compiler when
I was learning computer science; it's a driver program which
invokes different phases of the compiler and/or the linker,
depending on command line options, etc."

"Depending on the context today, "compiling" can mean what you do
to go from one or more .cc files to an executable binary, or
what you do to go from a single .cc file to a single .o/.obj
file, with linking being a separate step (and I can't think of a
good, simple verb for "building a library"). Note that with
g++, I use the commands g++ and cl (under Windows) for both
compiling and linking, and with Sun CC, I use the command CC for
building a library as well (although I use ar with g++, and lib
with cl)."

See, now that's what I think of as "compiling" also: the traditional use of
the term.

I'm surprised about this whole thread then! :)

So, would you consider going from source code to an intermediate
form, doing semantic analysis and such along the way, compiling? (The
intermediate form being symbol tables and such).

I prefer to think of things as a "compiler system" with a
"compiler proper" as one part.
--
Greg Comeau / 4.3.9 with C++0xisms now in beta!
Comeau C/C++ ONLINE == http://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryitout
World Class Compilers: Breathtaking C++, Amazing C99, Fabulous C90.
Comeau C/C++ with Dinkumware's Libraries... Have you tried it?

[JohnQ]

"Greg Comeau" <co****@panix.c omwrote in message
news:f9******** **@panix1.panix .com...

In article <T%************ *****@nlpi061.n bdc.sbc.com>,
JohnQ <jo************ ***********@yah oo.comwrote:

>>
"James Kanze" <ja*********@gm ail.comwrote in message
news:11****** *************** *@k79g2000hse.g ooglegroups.com ...
On Aug 10, 9:32 am, "JohnQ" <johnqREMOVETHI Sprogram...@yah oo.com>
wrote:

>>"Greg Comeau" <com...@panix.c omwrote in message

>>news:f9****** ****@panix2.pan ix.com...

>In article <l2wui.27099$RX .3...@newssvr11 .news.prodigy.n et>,
JohnQ <johnqREMOVETHI Sprogram...@yah oo.comwrote:
"Alf P. Steinbach" <[e-mail] wrote in message
news:13***** ********@corp.s upernews.com...
...
You're saying that it's "compiling" rather than just
"translatin g"..
Yes. If you don't have the Dragon book, get it.
I don't need it. I'm not building a compiler.

>Ok, but you asked about some of this stuff, and the "Dragon Book"
is normally considered a solid reference on some of this stuff.

>>I knew someone was going to say that. And I already knew what
I was going to say in return: I'd rather know what the C++
standard has to say about those things. I've heard
"translatio n phases" in here before, but I don't remember or
know if they actually put names on all of them. As in:
translation phase 1, preprocessing.

"The standard doesn't really speak of "compiling" formally. It
specifies how a C++ is translated to an executable file, then
executed. The translation has a certain number of steps;
classically , some of those have been considered "compiling" ,
where as the last has been considered "linking". But modern
systems tend to blur the distinction, and most systems today
also use a single command line for the works. Thus, for
example, g++ is not what would have been called a compiler when
I was learning computer science; it's a driver program which
invokes different phases of the compiler and/or the linker,
depending on command line options, etc."

"Depending on the context today, "compiling" can mean what you do
to go from one or more .cc files to an executable binary, or
what you do to go from a single .cc file to a single .o/.obj
file, with linking being a separate step (and I can't think of a
good, simple verb for "building a library"). Note that with
g++, I use the commands g++ and cl (under Windows) for both
compiling and linking, and with Sun CC, I use the command CC for
building a library as well (although I use ar with g++, and lib
with cl)."

See, now that's what I think of as "compiling" also: the traditional use
of
the term.

I'm surprised about this whole thread then! :)

It's probably because I'm learning stuff along the way. I _use_ C++, I don't
_implement_ it.

>

>So, would you consider going from source code to an intermediate
form, doing semantic analysis and such along the way, compiling? (The
intermediat e form being symbol tables and such).

I prefer to think of things as a "compiler system" with a
"compiler proper" as one part.

I think I was asking JK, but OK. What you said though, probably in this day
needs more definition and can have it. (I mean, it's clear in my mind :) ).

John

[LR]

JohnQ wrote:

See, now that's what I think of as "compiling" also: the traditional use
of the term. So, would you consider going from source code to an
intermediate form, doing semantic analysis and such along the way,
compiling? (The intermediate form being symbol tables and such).

I'm not sure I understand that.

"(The intermediate form being symbol tables and such)."

What makes you think that the intermediate form would include symbol
tables? For what reason? And what does "and such" include?

I always thought that the intermediate form would be code of some kind.

In the case of Comeau's compiler, C code. But no reason it couldn't be
something else. For example I understand that more recent versions of
Visual C++ compile to MSIL or CIL and from there to various native
machine codes. You may find this of interest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSIL

Not to say that a symbol table wouldn't be useful for, say, a cross
reference tool or something, but I don't see why it would be included in
the intermediate form.

But perhaps I'm wrong. What do you think the intermediate form is?

LR