Related articles |
---|
[8 earlier articles] |
Re: Why Can't We Build a C Compiler? frode@m2cs.naggum.se (Frode Odegard) (1988-12-29) |
Re: Why Can't We Build a C Compiler? unido!gmdzi!jc@uunet.uu.net (1989-01-05) |
Why can't we build a C compiler? think!compass!worley@EDDIE.MIT.EDU (1988-12-19) |
Re: Why Can't We Build a C Compiler? jbs@fenchurch.mit.edu (1989-01-03) |
Re: Why can't we build a C compiler? uokmax!glcowin@Central.Sun.COM (1989-01-18) |
Re: Why can't we build a C compiler? limonce@pilot.njin.net (1989-01-24) |
Re: Why can't we build a C compiler? waterloo.edu!cognos!rayt@RELAY.CS.NET (R.) (1989-01-25) |
Re: Why can't we build a C compiler? kurt@tc.fluke.com (1989-01-25) |
From: | "R." <waterloo.edu!cognos!rayt@RELAY.CS.NET> |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
Date: | Wed, 25 Jan 89 17:38:21 EST |
References: | <3210@ima.ima.isc.com> |
Organization: | Cognos Inc., Ottawa, Canada |
In article <3210@ima.ima.isc.com> Greg Cowin, in reference to C,
indicates that semantics is a major problem in ANY language
definition, since the present methods of its specification are
either informal or "complex and arcane"; one can hardly disagree.
However, he continues, "[i]n fact, to some degree the grammar
is insignificant. Formalization of syntax is a simpler problem
than the formalization of semantics." My comment here is that
one method of defining the semantics is THROUGH a grammar; in
my case, Van Wijngaarden grammars, which allow one full recursively
ennumerable capabilities. A major problem with such systems is
efficiency; but techniques are becoming available which allow
the parsing of such grammars in polynomial time. The theoretical
power is available, but it seems the trick is to actually FIND such
a grammar definition for normal programming languages. This is
an area of present research.
Ray Tigg 3755 Riverside Dr.
Cognos Incorporated Ottawa, Ontario
(613) 738-1440 x5013 CANADA K1G 3Z4
UUCP: uunet!mitel!sce!cognos!rayt
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.