Re: Can syntax be enough? No need of semantics.

Srinu <sinu.nayak2001@gmail.com>
Tue, 29 Sep 2009 05:21:15 -0700 (PDT)

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[3 earlier articles]
Re: Can syntax be enough? No need of semantics. anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2009-09-18)
Re: Can syntax be enough? No need of semantics. news@cuboid.co.uk (Andy Walker) (2009-09-19)
Re: Can syntax be enough? No need of semantics. dot@dotat.at (Tony Finch) (2009-09-21)
Re: Can syntax be enough? No need of semantics. torbenm@pc-003.diku.dk (2009-09-23)
Re: Can syntax be enough? No need of semantics. gopi.onthemove@gmail.com (gopi) (2009-09-24)
Re: Can syntax be enough? No need of semantics. gopi.onthemove@gmail.com (gopi) (2009-09-24)
Re: Can syntax be enough? No need of semantics. sinu.nayak2001@gmail.com (Srinu) (2009-09-29)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Srinu <sinu.nayak2001@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 05:21:15 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 09-09-062 09-09-068
Keywords: parse
Posted-Date: 30 Sep 2009 18:53:27 EDT

On Sep 18, 11:17 pm, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl)
wrote:
> That's just a question of what you see as syntax and what as "static
> semantics". The current mainstream is to consider things described by
> a context-free grammar as syntax and anything beyond that that has to
> be statically checked as static semantics.


I agree to this.


So, basically the answer is, "it is possible".


Thanks a lot.


Srinu


Post a followup to this message

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