Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| What's the word for... tjj@netnews.summit.novell.com (1994-02-16) |
| Re: What's the word for... hagerman@ece.cmu.edu (1994-02-17) |
| Re: What's the word for... gorton@blorf.amt.ako.dec.com (1994-02-17) |
| Re: What's the word for... tjj@netnews.summit.novell.com (1994-02-17) |
| Re: What's the word for... lawley@kurango.cit.gu.edu.au (1994-02-18) |
| Re: What's the word for... PJENSEN@CSI.compuserve.com (1994-02-18) |
| Re: What's the word for... marcoj@iro.umontreal.ca (Marco Jacques) (1994-02-18) |
| Re: What's the word for... galibero@mines.u-nancy.fr (1994-02-18) |
| Re: What's the word for... glockner@cosc.bsu.umd.edu (Alexander Glockner) (1994-02-18) |
| [10 later articles] |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| From: | gorton@blorf.amt.ako.dec.com (Richard Gorton) |
| Keywords: | theory |
| Organization: | Compilers Central |
| References: | 94-02-106 |
| Date: | Thu, 17 Feb 1994 13:46:39 GMT |
>Could someone please tell me what the word is for a language
>which can be written in itself?
Practically speaking, "usable" and "viable" come to mind.
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.