| Related articles |
|---|
| Handling the typedef problem with a modifiable grammar bevan@computer-science.manchester.ac.uk (Stephen J Bevan) (1992-01-13) |
| Programming language syntax design (was Re: ... typedef problem) landauer@morocco.Eng.Sun.COM (1992-01-14) |
| Programming language syntax design (was Re: ... typedef problem) bevan@computer-science.manchester.ac.uk (Stephen J Bevan) (1992-01-15) |
| Re: Programming language syntax design (was Re: ... typedef problem) anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (1992-01-17) |
| Re: Programming language syntax design (was Re: ... typedef problem) bliss@sp64.csrd.uiuc.edu (1992-01-20) |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| From: | Stephen J Bevan <bevan@computer-science.manchester.ac.uk> |
| Keywords: | parse, design |
| Organization: | Compilers Central |
| References: | 92-01-049 |
| Date: | Wed, 15 Jan 92 13:22:28 GMT |
[On the other hand, some of us would put "easy to parse using yacc" fairly
low on our list of criteria for good language design. -John]
Maybe that's why there are so many (syntactically) badly designed
languages :-)
IMHO by definition the "syntax" should be parsable by a context free
grammar. As I said previously if you don't design it like this you should
have a good reason. I have nothing against languages that deviate from
the rule as long as there is some real benefit from it. The Ada example I
gave is one example of this. I'm at a loss to think of another one.
Also, I don't consider "yacc" to be the last word in syntax analysis.
Like C it's old and past it's prime. There are better tools freely
available (e.g. GMD toolbox), if only people would use them.
Stephen J. Bevan bevan@cs.man.ac.uk
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.