compiler friends: is there a good name for a "lowered abstract syntax tree" that captures a program in terms of the semantics of the target platform, but doesn't go as far as e.g. bytecode? this would be a step between a more typical AST and code generation.
Conversation
Idris and Haskell have something called a "core language", for simplified representation of their type theories. I'm not sure if it's what you're looking for, but it's probably relevant.
docs.idris-lang.org/en/latest/refe
hackage.haskell.org/package/idris-
stephendiehl.com/posts/ghc_03.h
1
3
Yeah, I call this 'core' syntax as distinct from the 'concrete' syntax. I think others call the latter the 'surface' syntax too.
1
1
Yeah, surface vs core language.
1
oh yeah, super interesting. I've been thinking about a "normalized" form for my syntax trees after desugaring and all names have been expanded. surface and core are great ways to think about it.
1
1
Note that you might also want to do type directed elaboration too - I also do this when translating from the surface to the core.