Re: Dangling else

Marco van de Voort <marcov@stack.nl>
11 Mar 2006 23:32:45 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[6 earlier articles]
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)
Re: Dangling else henry@spsystems.net (2006-03-14)
Re: operator priorities, was Dangling else torbenm@app-4.diku.dk (2006-03-14)
Re: operator precedence, was Dangling else bonzini@gnu.org (Paolo Bonzini) (2006-03-14)
Re: Dangling else 148f3wg02@sneakemail.com (Karsten Nyblad) (2006-03-15)
Re: Dangling else DrDiettrich@compuserve.de (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2006-03-15)
[2 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |

From: Marco van de Voort <marcov@stack.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 11 Mar 2006 23:32:45 -0500
Organization: Stack Usenet News Service
References: 06-02-154 06-02-168 06-03-008
Keywords: parse, syntax

On 2006-03-05, Henry Spencer <henry@spsystems.net> wrote:
>
> our moderator wrote:
>>[I don't know anyone who thinks that C's million levels of precedences
>>are a good idea...
>
> Bear in mind, though, that attempts to reduce the number of levels have
> often been found equally unsatisfactory. Pascal tried, and the result was
> counterintuitive cases where certain parentheses, which everyone agrees
> ought to be redundant, are in fact necessary.


Could you give examples here? Are you refering to the experimental
notations for exponentiation 2^(-1) in some dialects ?


Post a followup to this message

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