Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| Building a parse tree that reflects C Semantics vbdis@aol.com (VBDis) (2002-10-13) |
| Re: Building a parse tree that reflects C Semantics grosch@cocolab.de (Josef Grosch) (2002-10-18) |
| Re: Building a parse tree that reflects C Semantics idbaxter@semdesigns.com (Ira Baxter) (2002-10-20) |
| Re: Building a parse tree that reflects C Semantics whopkins@alpha2.csd.uwm.edu (Mark) (2002-10-20) |
| Re: Building a parse tree that reflects C Semantics rbates@southwind.net (Rodney M. Bates) (2002-10-20) |
| Re: Building a parse tree that reflects C Semantics david.thompson1@worldnet.att.net (David Thompson) (2002-10-25) |
| Re: Building a parse tree that reflects C Semantics rbates@southwind.net (Rodney M. Bates) (2002-11-06) |
| Re: Building a parse tree that reflects C Semantics idbaxter@semdesigns.com (Ira Baxter) (2002-11-07) |
| From: | "Mark" <whopkins@alpha2.csd.uwm.edu> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | 20 Oct 2002 22:52:48 -0400 |
| Organization: | University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee, Computing Services Division |
| References: | 02-10-058 |
| Keywords: | parse, design |
| Posted-Date: | 20 Oct 2002 22:52:48 EDT |
"Josef Grosch" <grosch@cocolab.de> writes:
>The concrete syntax of declarations in C and C++ is weird in my humble
>opinion. A declaration for a variable should specify a name, a type,
>and maybe an initial value as well as additional attributes.
What you want is an extension of the C syntax to basically allow for the
equivalence of things like this:
int *A[4], *B; <---> (int *) A[4], B;
<---> (int *[4]) A; (int *)B;
<---> (int *) ([4])A, B;
That is, a type specifier can now be followed by an abstract declarator,
and a declarator can now be preceded by an abstract declarator.
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.