Re: operator precedence, was Dangling else

"Paolo Bonzini" <bonzini@gnu.org>
14 Mar 2006 00:54:57 -0500

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Re: Dangling else wyrmwif@tsoft.org (SM Ryan) (2006-02-24)
Re: Dangling else rsc@swtch.com (Russ Cox) (2006-02-24)
Re: Dangling else henry@spsystems.net (2006-03-05)
Re: Dangling else marcov@stack.nl (Marco van de Voort) (2006-03-11)
Re: operator precedence, was Dangling else bonzini@gnu.org (Paolo Bonzini) (2006-03-14)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: "Paolo Bonzini" <bonzini@gnu.org>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 14 Mar 2006 00:54:57 -0500
Organization: http://groups.google.com
References: 06-02-15406-02-168 06-03-008 06-03-023
Keywords: syntax
Posted-Date: 14 Mar 2006 00:54:57 EST

> > Pascal tried, and the result was
> > counterintuitive cases where certain parentheses, which everyone agrees
> > ought to be redundant, are in fact necessary.
>
> Could you give examples here? Are you refering to the experimental
> notations for exponentiation 2^(-1) in some dialects ?


I think he referred to the parentheses in "(a <= b) and (c > d)", which
were mandatory in Pascal.


Paolo


Post a followup to this message

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