Re: ALGOL - lexical analyzer

glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu>
8 May 2005 17:00:18 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
ALGOL - lexical analyzer edimodric@makni.inet.hr (Eddie) (2005-05-05)
Re: ALGOL - lexical analyzer nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (2005-05-06)
Re: ALGOL - lexical analyzer henry@spsystems.net (2005-05-07)
Re: ALGOL - lexical analyzer nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (2005-05-07)
Re: ALGOL - lexical analyzer Trevor.Jenkins@suneidesis.com (2005-05-07)
Re: ALGOL - lexical analyzer haberg@math.su.se (2005-05-07)
Re: ALGOL - lexical analyzer nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (2005-05-08)
Re: ALGOL - lexical analyzer gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2005-05-08)
Re: ALGOL - lexical analyzer gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2005-05-08)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 8 May 2005 17:00:18 -0400
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 05-05-027 05-05-029 05-05-036
Keywords: algol60, history, question, comment

Hans Aberg wrote:


(snip)


> In short, the ALGOL uses boldface the same way one does in pure
> mathematics, i.e., it changes the semantics. Because of this semantics
> change in pure math, different letter styles was added to Unicode
> (thanks to Ken Whistler willing to listen to my explanations). It
> means that ALGOL can now be implemented correctly, using the Unicode
> chracter set.


Not so long ago I was trying to see if any copies of the
ALGOL W compiler written by Wirth for OS/360 still exist.


Not that it allowed boldface type, but it did allow identifiers
of up to 256 characters, which I don't know of any other compiler
from that era allowed, and I don't know that many do now.


With 256 characters one could encode many details otherwise lost.


If anyone knows of source or load module of ALGOL W, I would
be interested in knowing about it. I even asked Wirth.


-- glen
[I poked around on the net and didn't see anything either. I did find the
Stanford Algol W tech reports from the late 1960s, and I believe that most
of the authors are still around, so you might want to write and see if any
of them have a literal dusty deck lying around. -John]


Post a followup to this message

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