Re: types, was Crenshaw's Tutorial

"Dr A. N. Walker" <>
27 Feb 2000 02:40:36 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Crenshaw's Tutorial (Colin Doncaster) (2000-01-19)
Re: Crenshaw's Tutorial (Jack Crenshaw) (2000-02-05)
Re: Crenshaw's Tutorial (Joachim Durchholz) (2000-02-10)
Re: Crenshaw's Tutorial (2000-02-12)
Re: Crenshaw's Tutorial (Alan Fargusson) (2000-02-15)
Re: Crenshaw's Tutorial (David Thompson) (2000-02-21)
Re: types, was Crenshaw's Tutorial (Dr A. N. Walker) (2000-02-27)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: "Dr A. N. Walker" <>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 27 Feb 2000 02:40:36 -0500
Organization: School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Nottingham, UK.
References: 00-01-073 00-02-01700-02-038 00-02-061 00-02-068 00-02-106
Keywords: algol68

David Thompson wrote:
> IIRC didn't the Algol 68 Report "look up" declarations by
> (conceptually) generating a grammar to carry them into uses?

Almost. The grammar included syntax that enforced scoping
rules, correct coercions, etc., but not the semantics. It *could*
have done that, but doubtless the "exploding brain" effect would have
been even worse.

> Unfortunately my brain exploded about 1/5 of the way
> through, and some of the pieces are still missing. ;-(
> [Yeah, I had the same problem. -John]

That's a pity, both of you. Next time you try, skip the first
1/5, which has the EB effect on everyone [normal], and read the actual
language definition and the examples. Then you'll know which of the
bits you skipped are actually important.
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.

Post a followup to this message

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