Related articles |
---|
[11 earlier articles] |
Re: problems with identifiers and keywords... gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2004-11-17) |
Re: problems with identifiers and keywords... gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2004-11-17) |
Re: problems with identifiers and keywords... lkrupp@pssw.NOSPAM.com.INVALID (Louis Krupp) (2004-11-17) |
Re: problems with identifiers and keywords... cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2004-11-17) |
Re: problems with identifiers and keywords... nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (2004-11-19) |
Re: problems with identifiers and keywords... gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2004-11-19) |
Re: problems with identifiers and keywords... gracjan@acchsh.nospam.com (Gracjan Polak) (2004-11-19) |
Re: problems with identifiers and keywords... Martin.Ward@durham.ac.uk (Martin Ward) (2004-11-19) |
Re: problems with identifiers and keywords... Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com (Peter Flass) (2004-11-20) |
Re: problems with identifiers and keywords... genew@mail.ocis.net (Gene Wirchenko) (2004-11-20) |
Re: problems with identifiers and keywords... david.thompson1@worldnet.att.net (Dave Thompson) (2004-11-28) |
Re: problems with identifiers and keywords... cgweav@aol.com (2004-11-29) |
Re: problems with identifiers and keywords... nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (2004-12-01) |
[3 later articles] |
From: | Gracjan Polak <gracjan@acchsh.nospam.com> |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
Date: | 19 Nov 2004 00:54:32 -0500 |
Organization: | tp.internet - http://www.tpi.pl/ |
References: | 04-10-148 04-10-170 04-10-174 04-11-008 04-11-011 04-11-054 |
Keywords: | syntax, design |
Posted-Date: | 19 Nov 2004 00:54:32 EST |
Louis Krupp wrote:
> The author of the program might even come to find the program
> awkward after learning more of the language and recognizing more of
> the keywords as keywords.
The same applies to compilers, those learn new keywords from time to
time, too. :) It happened to X11 headers written for C originally,
used in C++, which has 'class' as keyword. New compilers couldn't
parse old files.
In the X11 headers, that field is called 'class' when using C, and
called 'c_class' when using C++.
X11/Xutil.h:
typedef struct {
Visual *visual;
VisualID visualid;
int screen;
int depth;
#if defined(__cplusplus) || defined(c_plusplus)
int c_class; /* C++ */
#else
int class;
#endif
unsigned long red_mask;
unsigned long green_mask;
Might be that allowing 'class' as identifier in non keyword context
would provide full backward compatibility. I do not know if it would be
worth it, thought.
--
Gracjan
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.