Related articles |
---|
Dynamic Language (grammar) pohanl@my-deja.com (2000-07-31) |
Re: Dynamic Language (grammar) mcr@demon.co.uk (Martin Rodgers) (2000-08-04) |
Re: Dynamic Language (grammar) jimbo@radiks.net (2000-08-04) |
Re: Dynamic Language (grammar) mcr@wildcard.demon.co.uk (Martin Rodgers) (2000-08-05) |
Re: Dynamic Language (grammar) mcr@wildcard.demon.co.uk (Martin Rodgers) (2000-08-05) |
Re: Dynamic Language (grammar) mcr@wildcard.demon.co.uk (Martin Rodgers) (2000-08-10) |
Re: Dynamic Language (grammar) koontz@ariolimax.com (David G. Koontz) (2000-08-10) |
Re: Dynamic Language (grammar) mcr@wildcard.demon.co.uk (Martin Rodgers) (2000-08-14) |
From: | jimbo@radiks.net |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
Date: | 4 Aug 2000 15:52:52 -0400 |
Organization: | Deja.com - Before you buy. |
References: | 00-07-094 |
Keywords: | syntax, design, comment |
pohanl@my-deja.com wrote:
> But have you noticed something? All the languages
> in the world has a fixed grammar.
Except Forth. Forth has fixed means of parsing ( I don't
know that I'd exactly call it a grammar ), but this
parse/compile mechanism can be changed at compile-time.
An excellent example of this power is an old Dr. Dobbs
article (circa 1980) in which the author provides code
to add a "switch-case" construct for Forth.
There's also a commercial Forth out there that supplies
an infix expression parser ( written in Forth ) for those
that would prefer not to use the native RPN constructs.
Jim Lawless
jimbo@radiks.net
http://www.radiks.net/jimbo
[As I noted in an earlier message, languages with extensible syntax were
in vogue 30 years ago. It's technically not hard, what's hard is to
find a practical use for it. -John]
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.