Re: Why context-free?

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
27 Oct 2005 23:22:57 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[23 earlier articles]
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)
Re: Why context-free? dot@dotat.at (Tony Finch) (2005-10-27)
Re: Why context-free? nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (2005-10-29)
Re: Why context-free? henry@spsystems.net (2005-10-29)
Re: Why context-free? nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (2005-11-01)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 27 Oct 2005 23:22:57 -0400
Organization: dotat labs
References: 05-10-053 05-10-079 05-10-180 05-10-184
Keywords: parse, types

nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) wrote:
>
>In the case I am thinking of, which started this, I am thinking of at
>least three phases: lexing, parsing/type matching, and scope and
>inheritance checking. To keep the middle phase within bounds, it is
>clearly necessary to keep the type matching really simple and really
>just part of the parsing.


It sounds like you are assuming a language with a nugatory type system.
Doesn't scope checking affect type checking?


Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch <dot@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/
VIKING NORTH UTSIRE SOUTH UTSIRE: SOUTHEAST 6 TO GALE 8, PERHAPS SEVERE GALE 9
LATER. MAINLY FAIR. MODERATE WITH FOG PATCHES.



Post a followup to this message

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