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] |
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 |
Posted-Date: | 11 Mar 2006 23:32:45 EST |
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 ?
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.