Relation between REPL, interpreter and compiler
From [Wikipedia][1]:

> The REPL is commonly misnamed an
> interpreter. This is a misnomer—many
> programming languages that use
> compilation (including bytecode
> compilation) have REPLs, such as
> Common Lisp and Python.

From [a reply to this post][2]

> Interactive interpreters use REPLs. An
> interpreter is not required to have
> one. You can run Python, for example,
> in non-interactive mode (on a file)
> and it will not use a read-eval-print
> loop.


I was wondering if REPL always exists for an interpreter? Does Wikipedia say REPL also exists for a compiler? If yes, how is that like?

Thanks and regards!


  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Read-eval-print_loop
  [2]: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3424756/what-is-the-difference-between-a-repl-and-an-interpreter/3424772#3424772
Relation between REPL, interpreter and compiler
===

From [Wikipedia][1]:

> The REPL is commonly misnamed an
> interpreter. This is a misnomer—many
> programming languages that use
> compilation (including bytecode
> compilation) have REPLs, such as
> Common Lisp and Python.

From [a reply to this post][2]

> Interactive interpreters use REPLs. An
> interpreter is not required to have
> one. You can run Python, for example,
> in non-interactive mode (on a file)
> and it will not use a read-eval-print
> loop.


I was wondering if REPL always exists for an interpreter? Does Wikipedia say REPL also exists for a compiler? If yes, how is that like?

Thanks and regards!


  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Read-eval-print_loop
  [2]: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3424756/what-is-the-difference-between-a-repl-and-an-interpreter/3424772#3424772