Re: Articles/books that discuss separating the context-free part of a language from the context-sensitive part?

anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl)
Mon, 20 May 2013 10:53:39 GMT

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Articles/books that discuss separating the context-free part of a lang costello@mitre.org (Costello, Roger L.) (2013-05-17)
Re: Articles/books that discuss separating the context-free part of a gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2013-05-18)
Re: Articles/books that discuss separating the context-free part of a ademakov@gmail.com (Aleksey Demakov) (2013-05-18)
Re: Articles/books that discuss separating the context-free part of a genew@telus.net (Gene Wirchenko) (2013-05-19)
Re: Articles/books that discuss separating the context-free part of a gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2013-05-20)
Re: Articles/books that discuss separating the context-free part of a anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2013-05-20)
Re: Articles/books that discuss separating the context-free part of a genew@telus.net (Gene Wirchenko) (2013-05-20)
precedence have both ways jgk@panix.com (2013-05-30)
Re: precedence have both ways gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2013-05-31)
Re: precedence have both ways anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2013-05-31)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 10:53:39 GMT
Organization: Institut fuer Computersprachen, Technische Universitaet Wien
References: 13-05-010
Keywords: parse, theory
Posted-Date: 20 May 2013 15:04:48 EDT

"Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org> writes:
>The poster makes the point that most programming languages define a
>context-free core, and then have additional algorithms which run on the parse
>tree to filter out constructs that are illegal in the language:
...
>[ [...] it also permits much better
>error messages. -John]


That depends on the syntax of the language. E.g., at one time
Modula-2 was the language used in our introductory programming course
25 years ago, our students used to write things like


a<3 AND b<3


and the compiler reported a type error (a and b were of type INTEGER).
But it really was a syntax error. The students should have written


(a<3) AND (b<3)


because the implicit binding was


a<(3 AND b)<3


and "3 AND b" was a type error. This error message confused the
students no end.


- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at
http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/


Post a followup to this message

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