|Crenshaw's Tutorial email@example.com (Colin Doncaster) (2000-01-19)|
|Re: Crenshaw's Tutorial firstname.lastname@example.org (Jack Crenshaw) (2000-02-05)|
|Re: Crenshaw's Tutorial email@example.com (Joachim Durchholz) (2000-02-10)|
|Re: Crenshaw's Tutorial firstname.lastname@example.org (2000-02-12)|
|Re: Crenshaw's Tutorial email@example.com (Alan Fargusson) (2000-02-15)|
|Re: Crenshaw's Tutorial firstname.lastname@example.org (David Thompson) (2000-02-21)|
|Re: types, was Crenshaw's Tutorial Andrew.Walker@nottingham.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker) (2000-02-27)|
|From:||"Dr A. N. Walker" <Andrew.Walker@nottingham.ac.uk>|
|Date:||27 Feb 2000 02:40:36 -0500|
|Organization:||School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Nottingham, UK.|
|References:||00-01-073 00-02-01700-02-038 00-02-061 00-02-068 00-02-106|
David Thompson wrote:
> IIRC didn't the Algol 68 Report "look up" declarations by
> (conceptually) generating a grammar to carry them into uses?
Almost. The grammar included syntax that enforced scoping
rules, correct coercions, etc., but not the semantics. It *could*
have done that, but doubtless the "exploding brain" effect would have
been even worse.
> Unfortunately my brain exploded about 1/5 of the way
> through, and some of the pieces are still missing. ;-(
> [Yeah, I had the same problem. -John]
That's a pity, both of you. Next time you try, skip the first
1/5, which has the EB effect on everyone [normal], and read the actual
language definition and the examples. Then you'll know which of the
bits you skipped are actually important.
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.