Related articles |
---|
[16 earlier articles] |
Re: Why context-free? darius@raincode.com (Darius Blasband) (2005-10-13) |
Re: Why context-free? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2005-10-14) |
Re: Why context-free? darius@raincode.com (Darius Blasband) (2005-10-19) |
Re: Why context-free? nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (2005-10-19) |
Re: Why context-free? nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (2005-10-19) |
Re: Why context-free? nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (2005-10-20) |
Re: Why context-free? find@my.address.elsewhere (Matthias Blume) (2005-10-23) |
Re: Why context-free? lhp+news@toft-hp.dk (Lasse =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hiller=F8e?= Petersen) (2005-10-23) |
Re: Why context-free? stephen@dino.dnsalias.com (2005-10-23) |
Re: Why context-free? nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (2005-10-26) |
Re: Why context-free? wyrmwif@tsoft.org (SM Ryan) (2005-10-26) |
Re: Why context-free? henry@spsystems.net (2005-10-26) |
Re: Why context-free? nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (2005-10-27) |
[4 later articles] |
From: | Matthias Blume <find@my.address.elsewhere> |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
Date: | 23 Oct 2005 00:33:38 -0400 |
Organization: | private |
References: | 05-10-053 05-10-061 05-10-083 05-10-109 05-10-131 |
Keywords: | parse, design |
Posted-Date: | 23 Oct 2005 00:33:38 EDT |
nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) writes:
> However, my experience is that most people think in a context-full
> fashion, and so there is a strong argument for designing a language
> where controlled aspects of the context are first-class parts of the
> syntax.
I agree with the premise, but I don't understand how you derive the
conclusion from it. Context-sensitive aspects of programming
languages are routinely handled by subsequent passes (type checking,
elaboration, etc.) There is no particularly good reason to move this
stuff into the parser, and there are several good reasons (which
people here have already enumerated) for not doing so.
Cheers,
Matthias
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.