Re: Programming language specification languages

wclodius@aol.com (Wclodius)
20 Oct 2001 21:53:00 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[4 earlier articles]
Re: Programming language specification languages idbaxter@semdesigns.com (Ira D. Baxter) (2001-09-26)
Re: Programming language specification languages vbdis@aol.com (2001-09-26)
Re: Programming language specification languages wclodius@aol.com (2001-10-06)
Re: Programming language specification languages joachim_d@gmx.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2001-10-06)
Re: Programming language specification languages joachim_d@gmx.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2001-10-06)
Re: Programming language specification languages neelk@alum.mit.edu (2001-10-10)
Re: Programming language specification languages wclodius@aol.com (2001-10-20)
Re: Programming language specification languages nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (2001-10-21)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: wclodius@aol.com (Wclodius)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 20 Oct 2001 21:53:00 -0400
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
References: 01-10-020
Keywords: design
Posted-Date: 20 Oct 2001 21:53:00 EDT

>Take a look at two-level grammars (van Wijngaarden). It's a sort of
>"grammars with attributes"; you stuff the types (and scoping
>information etc.) into the attributes.


Nick's message indicated that he was very familiar with the Algol 68
specification, which is given by a van Wijngaarden grammar (this type
of grammar was developed in conjunction with Algol 68), and he wanted
that level of specification accuracy. Unfortunately he also wanted
automated tools to validate the specification and use the
spedification to do as much of the implementation as possible, and
such tools do not seem to be available for two level grammars.


William B. Clodius


Post a followup to this message

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