Why put type information into syntax?

"Allister Cross" <across@vega.co.uk>
25 Mar 2000 02:35:52 -0500

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Why put type information into syntax? across@vega.co.uk (Allister Cross) (2000-03-25)
Re: Why put type information into syntax? michael.prqa@indigo.ie (Michael Spencer) (2000-03-28)
Re: Why put type information into syntax? lex@cc.gatech.edu (2000-03-28)
Re: Why put type information into syntax? RobertADuffbobduff@world.std.com> (2000-03-28)
Re: Re: Why put type information into syntax? srineet@email.com (Srineet) (2000-04-01)
Re: Why put type information into syntax? tlh20@cam.ac.uk (Tim Harris) (2000-04-01)
Re: Why put type information into syntax? kst@cts.com (Keith Thompson) (2000-04-01)
[8 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
From: "Allister Cross" <across@vega.co.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 25 Mar 2000 02:35:52 -0500
Organization: Compilers Central
Keywords: types, design, question

Does anyone know of any reasons why built-in type names should be
incorporated in the syntax of a language. I have been looking at the
Java yacc grammar produced by Dmitri Bronnikov. This grammar contains
a 'PrimitiveType' production containing the built-in types of
'BOOLEAN', 'CHAR' and so on. What is the advantage off treating
built-in types differently from user-defined types?? Would it not be
better to treat all types uniformly, by not putting primitive types in
the grammar, and resolving such typing issues during semantic
analysis.


Thanks


Allister Cross

Post a followup to this message

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