|problem with C grammar email@example.com (firstname.lastname@example.org) (2006-05-26)|
|Re: problem with C grammar email@example.com (Ivan A. Kosarev) (2006-05-26)|
|Re: problem with C grammar DrDiettrich@compuserve.de (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2006-05-30)|
|Re: problem with C grammar cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2006-05-30)|
|problem with C grammar firstname.lastname@example.org (A.T.Hofkamp) (2006-05-30)|
|Re: problem with C grammar email@example.com (Russ Cox) (2006-05-30)|
|Re: problem with C grammar firstname.lastname@example.org (Ira Baxter) (2006-06-03)|
|Re: problem with C grammar email@example.com (Waldek Hebisch) (2006-06-03)|
|Re: problem with C grammar firstname.lastname@example.org (Dmitry A. Kazakov) (2006-06-05)|
|From:||"Russ Cox" <email@example.com>|
|Date:||30 May 2006 23:25:52 -0400|
|Posted-Date:||30 May 2006 23:25:52 EDT|
> The handling of symbols is a complex thing in C. Lately I've written an
> LL(1) parser for C, where a global symbol table classifies all names
> into keywords, macros and identifiers, and further classifies global
> identifiers as names of types, (enumerated) constants etc. Since in C
> all typenames have global scope, the implementation of such a
> classification is not very complicated.
It is not true that in C all type names have global scope.
This is a valid C program:
typedef int X;
X x = 1;
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.