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

On 2010-04-16, Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:


> "...When programming, avoid using reserved words as names for window,
> table, or field names. If you use a reserved word as a name, it
> might generate a syntax error."
>
> "might"?! That's amazingly poor language design, unless there's some
> documentation elsewhere that defines when they really are reserved.
> To me, "reserved" ought to mean "you will get a compile time error if
> you use these words in certain contexts".


Yes. And so some others not, hence might. At least that is how I read it.


Note that this makes sense if they have a way to escape an identifier with
the name of a reserved word. (like e.g. Delphi has, where you can escape
such an idenitifier with &begin).


Note that this doesn't mean that it is a good idea to use
identifiers-with-the-same-name-as-reserved-words everywhere, since usually
such features are introduced only to make it easier to port old code if new
reserved words are introduced. (and e.g. Delphi's language is updated
nearly each iteration, so there it makes sense)

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