I'm with William G. Davis in disagreeing with you on this. Code generation can mean that you've managed to express things in terms of a higher-level abstraction. I don't see the relevance of your distinction between code generated at runtime and that generated earlier.
It would be perfectly reasonable to invent a new language (whether a generic language or something more domain-specific), and have the implementation of the language compile it to perl code.
In fact a C compiler does exactly this: it generates an assembler program from the C code. This also I think answers the one issue I recognise from perrin's comment, on the danger of files getting out of sync if you hand-edit the intermediate results - it is a matter of expectation (I don't expect to edit the assembler source that the C compiler produces), reinforced by infrastructure (eg setting the generated files read-only) and protocol ("this is the procedure to change it").
Hugo
In reply to Re^2: (OT) Generated Code vs. Libraries
by hv
in thread (OT) Generated Code vs. Libraries
by Mutant
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |