Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| From: | Derek <derek-nospam@shape-of-code.com> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | Tue, 11 Jun 2024 00:28:18 +0100 |
| Organization: | Compilers Central |
| References: | 24-06-003 24-06-005 |
| Injection-Info: | gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="54806"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" |
| Keywords: | parse, semantics, comment |
| Posted-Date: | 11 Jun 2024 03:26:51 EDT |
| In-Reply-To: | 24-06-005 |
John,
> [I had two other thoughts. One was that you can tell C was written when
> parsing was still hard enough that you didn't want to bulk the parsers
> up with semantic stuff. The other was that in the languages where it is
> hard to write a valid problem, how much more likely is it that the program
> actually works once you get it to compile? -John]
C was created after Algol 68, whose 2-level grammar contained
syntax+semantics. Algol 68 programs automatically generated from the
language grammar should compile just fine. I suspect that output would
be rare, because generating the code needed to produce output would be
uncommon, and the path to it being the end result of a drunkards walk.
C had a kind-of conventional grammar, where-as Algol 68 grammar is
certainly not conventional (it might even be unique).
[I never heard of any other language using VW-grammars. In C's
defense, the early compilers -John]
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.