Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| From: | Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@netscape.net> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | Sat, 3 Dec 2022 22:16:44 +0100 |
| Organization: | Compilers Central |
| References: | 22-12-001 22-12-003 |
| Injection-Info: | gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="30373"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" |
| Keywords: | syntax, design |
| Posted-Date: | 03 Dec 2022 17:52:14 EST |
| In-Reply-To: | 22-12-003 |
On 12/3/22 11:25 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> schrieb:
>> One feature that I find makes them easier to use, and harder to
>> implement, is no reserved words.
>
> I think this is more a matter of extensibility than of ease of use,
> but both are somewhat intertwined.
>
> Adding a new reserved word is a breaking change, especially if that
> word is often used. See "new" in C++, which was something reasonable
> to use in C, and is reserved in C++.
IMO C basic syntax is a bad base. As long as declarations and
expressions can be distinguished only by the type of an identifier (type
name or variable name) it's not a good idea to add new keywords that can
be confused with variable or type names. Instead weird constructs like
"long long" for int64_t have been introduced, while "int int" stays
equivalent to "int".
DoDi
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.