Re: language twiddling, was Infinite look ahead required by C++?

Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net>
Wed, 14 Apr 2010 20:15:33 -0700

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[8 earlier articles]
Re: language twiddling, was Infinite look ahead required by C++? bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com (Robert A Duff) (2010-03-05)
Re: language twiddling, was Infinite look ahead required by C++? cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2010-03-07)
Re: language twiddling, was Infinite look ahead required by C++? bartc@freeuk.com (bartc) (2010-03-08)
Re: language twiddling, was Infinite look ahead required by C++? cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2010-03-10)
Re: language twiddling, was Infinite look ahead required by C++? bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com (Robert A Duff) (2010-03-12)
Re: language twiddling, was Infinite look ahead required by C++? nevillednz@gmail.com (Neville Dempsey) (2010-03-14)
Re: language twiddling, was Infinite look ahead required by C++? genew@ocis.net (Gene Wirchenko) (2010-04-14)
Re: language twiddling, was Infinite look ahead required by C++? bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com (Robert A Duff) (2010-04-16)
Re: language twiddling, was Infinite look ahead required by C++? genew@ocis.net (Gene Wirchenko) (2010-04-18)
Re: language twiddling, was Infinite look ahead required by C++? marcov@turtle.stack.nl (Marco van de Voort) (2010-04-19)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 20:15:33 -0700
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 10-02-024 10-02-039 10-02-086 10-02-088 10-03-003 10-03-005 10-03-007 10-03-012
Keywords: parse
Posted-Date: 16 Apr 2010 01:50:09 EDT

On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:07:17 -0500, Robert A Duff
<bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:


>glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes:
>
>> Both Fortran and PL/I have no reserved words. I am not so sure
>> about Fortran, but it seems to have been intentional for PL/I.
>> A large list of reserved words (reference COBOL) means that
>> programmers have to know those words, even if they don't need
>> those features.
>
>Not really. A programmer doesn't need to memorize all the reserved
>words. They can just write code, and fix it when the compiler
>complains "you tried to declare a procedure whose name is a reserved
>word".


          That will depend on the language. Microsoft's Visual FoxPro has
reserved words. In practice, the tokeniser will not complain, and
there is only a problem if the reserved word has special meaning in
the context.


[snip]


Sincerely,


Gene Wirchenko


Post a followup to this message

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