Re: syntax extension, was Why context-free?

nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren)
15 Dec 2005 17:52:46 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[5 earlier articles]
Re: syntax extension, was Why context-free? haberg@math.su.se (2005-11-02)
Re: syntax extension, was Why context-free? toby@telegraphics.com.au (toby) (2005-11-04)
Re: syntax extension, was Why context-free? henry@spsystems.net (2005-11-26)
Re: syntax extension, was Why context-free? haberg@math.su.se (2005-11-27)
Re: syntax extension, was Why context-free? mpah@thegreen.co.uk (2005-12-08)
Re: syntax extension, was Why context-free? rfigura@erbse.azagtoth.de (Robert Figura) (2005-12-15)
Re: syntax extension, was Why context-free? nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (2005-12-15)
Re: syntax extension, was Why context-free? mpah@thegreen.co.uk (2005-12-15)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 15 Dec 2005 17:52:46 -0500
Organization: University of Cambridge, England
References: 05-10-053 05-11-122 05-12-017 05-12-037
Keywords: parse

Robert Figura <rfigura@erbse.azagtoth.de> wrote:
>You cannot make an universal turing machine from a simple recursive
>automaton. But there are reasons to stick to parsers which are
>guaranteed to halt in finite time. Grammar matching has been kept even
>simpler since usually no modification of the grammar is allowed after
>parsing begins.


Remember the original PL/1 language and the original Algol 68 report?
Finite time is not enough - it needs to be bounded by a reasonable
function in the size of a program.


>My desire for clean design has been calling for relief for years and
>it won't stop. My hope is that we might find better ways to bring
>marriages to our language zoo in the future.


I sympathise, but am likely to retire with my desire unsatisfied.
You may be younger, but you may well do the same.




Regards,
Nick Maclaren.


Post a followup to this message

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