Re: types, was Crenshaw's Tutorial

"Dr A. N. Walker" <Andrew.Walker@nottingham.ac.uk>
27 Feb 2000 02:40:36 -0500

          From comp.compilers

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)
| List of all articles for this month |
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


Post a followup to this message

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