Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| Dangling else borneq@nborneq.nospam.pl (borneq) (2006-02-19) |
| Re: Dangling else haberg@math.su.se (2006-02-19) |
| Re: Dangling else wyrmwif@tsoft.org (SM Ryan) (2006-02-24) |
| Re: Dangling else rsc@swtch.com (Russ Cox) (2006-02-24) |
| Re: Dangling else rsc@swtch.com (Russ Cox) (2006-02-24) |
| Re: Dangling else wyrmwif@tsoft.org (SM Ryan) (2006-03-05) |
| Re: Dangling else wyrmwif@tsoft.org (SM Ryan) (2006-03-05) |
| Re: Dangling else jvorbrueggen-not@mediasec.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan_Vorbr=FCggen?=) (2006-03-05) |
| Re: Dangling else henry@spsystems.net (2006-03-05) |
| Re: Dangling else david.thompson1@worldnet.att.net (Dave Thompson) (2006-03-05) |
| Re: Dangling else mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de (Dmitry A. Kazakov) (2006-03-06) |
| Re: Dangling else rsc@swtch.com (Russ Cox) (2006-03-06) |
| Re: Dangling else marcov@stack.nl (Marco van de Voort) (2006-03-11) |
| Re: Dangling else Brian.Inglis@SystematicSW.ab.ca (Brian Inglis) (2006-03-11) |
| [5 later articles] |
| From: | =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan_Vorbr=FCggen?= <jvorbrueggen-not@mediasec.de> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | 5 Mar 2006 02:17:24 -0500 |
| Organization: | MediaSec Technologies GmbH |
| References: | 06-02-168 06-02-171 |
| Keywords: | parse, syntax |
| Posted-Date: | 05 Mar 2006 02:17:24 EST |
> I haven't used APL much, but troff expressions have the same
> rule--everything left to right, equal precedence--and there I find it
> jarring to read expressions like 1+2*3 as 9.
If a language doesn't have precedence levels, then such expressions
should be disallowed. This is how occam2 does it - you need explicit
parentheses everywhere. A bit of a nuisance, sometimes, that's for
sure - but consistent and, if you take FP expressions into account,
perhaps an improvement from a numerical point of view.
> I think that C makes some bad choices for its precedence levels (and
> assigning left-to-right precedence to what should be nonassociative
> operators) but I still think that precedence levels are useful.
> Mathematicians don't seem to be giving up on them any time soon.
But they have only very few widely accepted precendence levels. The problem
with the C set is that nobody can remember them, let alone remember them
correctly. And a language that doesn't take human cognitive deficits into
account is just badly designed, IMO.
Jan
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.