Related articles |
---|
Choosing a parser for Mathematica input drkirkby@gmail.com (David Kirkby) (2010-11-07) |
Re: Choosing a parser for Mathematica input fateman@gmail.com (2015-02-05) |
parsability (was: Choosing a parser for Mathematica input) gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2015-02-06) |
Re: parsability robin51@dodo.com.au (Robin Vowels) (2015-02-09) |
Re: parsability DrDiettrich1@netscape.net (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2015-02-08) |
Re: parsability news@iecc.com (2015-02-09) |
From: | news@iecc.com (News Subsystem) |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
Date: | Mon, 9 Feb 2015 14:37:46 +1100 |
Organization: | Compilers Central |
References: | 10-11-017 15-02-009 15-02-011 15-02-017 15-02-019 |
Keywords: | history, design |
Posted-Date: | 10 Feb 2015 01:49:07 EST |
rFom: | "Robin Vowels" <robin51@dodo.com.au> |
From: "Hans-Peter Diettrich" <DrDiettrich1@netscape.net>
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2015 6:49 AM
> Robin Vowels schrieb:
>
>> A number of special characters have traditionally acquired multiple uses.
>> The asterisk, parentheses, apostrophe, colon, period, feature heavily
>> on account of the limited number of characters available in equipment
>> of the era (48-character set, 60 character set, etc.) and continue to do so
>> for historical reasons.
>
> IMO the real and persistent limit is the keyboard, with a limited number
> of keys.
Present keyboards for the PC have keys for 33 special characters
(in addition to upper and lower-case and digits).
That's twice as many in use in languages.
> Increasing the number of keys is not a solution, because then
> it may be more time consuming to find an special key, instead of reusing
> a character or typing more characters.
No need to increase the number of keys. Recall old typewriters?
Some had provision for three shifts (lower-case, upper-case, and special characters).
The same could be done with computer keyboards (well, it's sort of done with the normal, caps, and
CTRL keys).
A proper third shift key with corresponding glyphs inscribed on the keys
could extend the range of special characters. After all, there is provision for 256 characters
encoded in a byte, and we use only half of them.
>Why didn't APL succeed in the long run?
Because it was write once throw-away language.
Programs were largely unintelligible to all except the writer.
This email probably contains viruses and malware despite what avast! Antivirus protection says.
[It was perfectly possible to write readable APL programs, but almost
nobody did. -John]
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.