Re: Dynamic Language (grammar)

jimbo@radiks.net
4 Aug 2000 15:52:52 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Dynamic Language (grammar) pohanl@my-deja.com (2000-07-31)
Re: Dynamic Language (grammar) mcr@demon.co.uk (Martin Rodgers) (2000-08-04)
Re: Dynamic Language (grammar) jimbo@radiks.net (2000-08-04)
Re: Dynamic Language (grammar) mcr@wildcard.demon.co.uk (Martin Rodgers) (2000-08-05)
Re: Dynamic Language (grammar) mcr@wildcard.demon.co.uk (Martin Rodgers) (2000-08-05)
Re: Dynamic Language (grammar) mcr@wildcard.demon.co.uk (Martin Rodgers) (2000-08-10)
Re: Dynamic Language (grammar) koontz@ariolimax.com (David G. Koontz) (2000-08-10)
Re: Dynamic Language (grammar) mcr@wildcard.demon.co.uk (Martin Rodgers) (2000-08-14)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: jimbo@radiks.net
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 4 Aug 2000 15:52:52 -0400
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
References: 00-07-094
Keywords: syntax, design, comment

    pohanl@my-deja.com wrote:
> But have you noticed something? All the languages
> in the world has a fixed grammar.


Except Forth. Forth has fixed means of parsing ( I don't
know that I'd exactly call it a grammar ), but this
parse/compile mechanism can be changed at compile-time.


An excellent example of this power is an old Dr. Dobbs
article (circa 1980) in which the author provides code
to add a "switch-case" construct for Forth.


There's also a commercial Forth out there that supplies
an infix expression parser ( written in Forth ) for those
that would prefer not to use the native RPN constructs.


Jim Lawless
jimbo@radiks.net
http://www.radiks.net/jimbo
[As I noted in an earlier message, languages with extensible syntax were
in vogue 30 years ago. It's technically not hard, what's hard is to
find a practical use for it. -John]


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.