Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| Crenshaw's Tutorial colin@bentanimation.com (Colin Doncaster) (2000-01-19) |
| Re: Crenshaw's Tutorial jcrens@earthlink.net (Jack Crenshaw) (2000-02-05) |
| Re: Crenshaw's Tutorial joachim.durchholz@halstenbach.com.or.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2000-02-10) |
| Re: Crenshaw's Tutorial gneuner@dyn.com (2000-02-12) |
| Re: Crenshaw's Tutorial alanf@ns.net (Alan Fargusson) (2000-02-15) |
| Re: Crenshaw's Tutorial david.thompson1@worldnet.att.net (David Thompson) (2000-02-21) |
| Re: types, was Crenshaw's Tutorial Andrew.Walker@nottingham.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker) (2000-02-27) |
| From: | "Dr A. N. Walker" <Andrew.Walker@nottingham.ac.uk> |
| 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.
anw@maths.nott.ac.uk
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.