Re: language design after Algol 60

"Robin Vowels" <robin51@dodo.com.au>
Sat, 14 Apr 2018 14:19:11 +1000

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[5 earlier articles]
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2018-04-10)
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2018-04-10)
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support DrDiettrich1@netscape.net (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2018-04-12)
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support bc@freeuk.com (bartc) (2018-04-12)
Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support bc@freeuk.com (bartc) (2018-04-12)
Re: language design after Algol 60 robin51@dodo.com.au (Robin Vowels) (2018-04-14)
Re: language design after Algol 60 robin51@dodo.com.au (Robin Vowels) (2018-04-14)
Re: language design after Algol 60 bc@freeuk.com (bartc) (2018-04-14)
Re: language design after Algol 60 anw@cuboid.co.uk (Andy Walker) (2018-04-15)
Re: language design after Algol 60 robin51@dodo.com.au (Robin Vowels) (2018-04-17)
Re: Language design after Algol 60 robin51@dodo.com.au (Robin Vowels) (2018-04-18)
Re: language design after Algol 60 genew@telus.net (Gene Wirchenko) (2018-04-18)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: "Robin Vowels" <robin51@dodo.com.au>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2018 14:19:11 +1000
Organization: Compilers Central
References: <49854345-f940-e82a-5c35-35078c4189d5@gkc.org.uk> 18-03-103 18-03-042 18-03-047 18-03-075 18-03-079 18-03-101 18-04-002 18-04-003 18-04-004 18-04-024 18-04-034 18-04-041 18-04-046 18-04-050
Injection-Info: gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="2803"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com"
Keywords: syntax, algol68
Posted-Date: 14 Apr 2018 15:04:43 EDT

From: "bartc" <bc@freeuk.com>
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 4:40 AM




> But it is not adding extra syntax; if anything it is getting rid of it!
> If a for-loop starts like this:
>
> for i:=1 to n do ...
>
> Then by leaving out the bits not needed you end up with this:
>
> to n do ...


The control variable, i, must not be omitted.
It may be required for computations within the loop
(including subscript references).


Even if not explicitly referenced within the loop,
its value will be required for fault finding (with error control
and/or with debugger).


> A repeat-n-times loop (one that doesn't have to maintain an explicit
> loop counter accessible as a reference-counted variable from the source
> code).


It's still required, as described above.


Post a followup to this message

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