Re: language design, syntax extension, was Why context-free?

"Oliver Wong" <owong@castortech.com>
12 Nov 2005 16:38:19 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Why context-free? nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (2005-10-06)
Re: Why context-free? gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2005-10-09)
Re: Why context-free? nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (2005-10-13)
Re: syntax extension, was Why context-free? toby@telegraphics.com.au (toby) (2005-11-01)
Re: syntax extension, was Why context-free? nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (2005-11-01)
Re: syntax extension, was Why context-free? toby@telegraphics.com.au (toby) (2005-11-04)
Re: language design, syntax extension, was Why context-free? owong@castortech.com (Oliver Wong) (2005-11-12)
Re: language design, syntax extension, was Why context-free? boldyrev+nospam@cgitftp.uiggm.nsc.ru (Ivan Boldyrev) (2005-11-15)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: "Oliver Wong" <owong@castortech.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Followup-To: comp.lang.misc
Date: 12 Nov 2005 16:38:19 -0500
Organization: GlobeTrotter
References: 05-10-05305-10-068 05-10-075 05-11-006 05-11-013 05-11-039
Keywords: administrivia

> [When they're longer than the original article, I guess.
> This is veering away from compiler design into language design, so with
> one more message in the queue I'm going to decree this thread to be over.


        Out of curiosity, IS there a newsgroup for language design? The best I
could come up with are comp.lang and alt.comp.lang, both of which only seem
to contain only spam.


        - Oliver
[ Try comp.lang.misc. -John]



Post a followup to this message

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