Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| [4 earlier articles] |
| Re: Programming language specification languages idbaxter@semdesigns.com (Ira D. Baxter) (2001-09-26) |
| Re: Programming language specification languages vbdis@aol.com (2001-09-26) |
| Re: Programming language specification languages wclodius@aol.com (2001-10-06) |
| Re: Programming language specification languages joachim_d@gmx.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2001-10-06) |
| Re: Programming language specification languages joachim_d@gmx.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2001-10-06) |
| Re: Programming language specification languages neelk@alum.mit.edu (2001-10-10) |
| Re: Programming language specification languages wclodius@aol.com (2001-10-20) |
| Re: Programming language specification languages nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (2001-10-21) |
| From: | wclodius@aol.com (Wclodius) |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | 20 Oct 2001 21:53:00 -0400 |
| Organization: | AOL http://www.aol.com |
| References: | 01-10-020 |
| Keywords: | design |
| Posted-Date: | 20 Oct 2001 21:53:00 EDT |
>Take a look at two-level grammars (van Wijngaarden). It's a sort of
>"grammars with attributes"; you stuff the types (and scoping
>information etc.) into the attributes.
Nick's message indicated that he was very familiar with the Algol 68
specification, which is given by a van Wijngaarden grammar (this type
of grammar was developed in conjunction with Algol 68), and he wanted
that level of specification accuracy. Unfortunately he also wanted
automated tools to validate the specification and use the
spedification to do as much of the implementation as possible, and
such tools do not seem to be available for two level grammars.
William B. Clodius
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.