Re: Algol W

Tomasz Kowaltowski <tk@ic.unicamp.br>
Fri, 27 Mar 2009 11:48:26 -0300

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Algol 68 Genie Mark 16 - An Algol 68 interpreter algol68g@xs4all.nl (Marcel van der Veer) (2009-03-24)
Re: Algol 68 Genie Mark 16 - An Algol 68 interpreter sinu.nayak2001@gmail.com (Srinu) (2009-03-24)
Re: Algol 68 Genie Mark 16 - An Algol 68 interpreter gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2009-03-24)
Re: Algol W, was Algol 68 Genie Mark 16 - An Algol 68 interpreter gdw@wave.co.nz (Glyn Webster) (2009-03-25)
Re: Algol W, was Algol 68 Genie Mark 16 - An Algol 68 interpreter gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2009-03-25)
Re: Algol W tk@ic.unicamp.br (Tomasz Kowaltowski) (2009-03-27)
Re: Algol W kym@svalbard.freeshell.org (russell kym horsell) (2009-03-31)
Re: Algol W rpw3@rpw3.org (2009-04-24)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Tomasz Kowaltowski <tk@ic.unicamp.br>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 11:48:26 -0300
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 09-03-091 09-03-093 09-03-096 09-03-097 09-03-100
Keywords: algol60, history
Posted-Date: 27 Mar 2009 15:36:51 EDT

compilers-owner@lists.iecc.com wrote:


> [Algol W was somewhere between Algol 60 and Pascal, with records and
> defined I/O, and no call by name. It was different enough from its
> predecessors to be called a language. -John]


I have the impression that Algol W was designed so that it could be
parsed using simple precedence grammars defined by Wirth and Weber as a
generalization of operator precedence grammars.


-- Tomasz Kowaltowski
[I'm not surprised, the state of parsing was pretty primitive at the time. -John]


Post a followup to this message

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