|Handling the typedef problem with a modifiable grammar firstname.lastname@example.org (Stephen J Bevan) (1992-01-13)|
|Programming language syntax design (was Re: ... typedef problem) landauer@morocco.Eng.Sun.COM (1992-01-14)|
|Programming language syntax design (was Re: ... typedef problem) email@example.com (Stephen J Bevan) (1992-01-15)|
|Re: Programming language syntax design (was Re: ... typedef problem) firstname.lastname@example.org (1992-01-17)|
|Re: Programming language syntax design (was Re: ... typedef problem) email@example.com (1992-01-20)|
|From:||Stephen J Bevan <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||Wed, 15 Jan 92 13:22:28 GMT|
[On the other hand, some of us would put "easy to parse using yacc" fairly
low on our list of criteria for good language design. -John]
Maybe that's why there are so many (syntactically) badly designed
IMHO by definition the "syntax" should be parsable by a context free
grammar. As I said previously if you don't design it like this you should
have a good reason. I have nothing against languages that deviate from
the rule as long as there is some real benefit from it. The Ada example I
gave is one example of this. I'm at a loss to think of another one.
Also, I don't consider "yacc" to be the last word in syntax analysis.
Like C it's old and past it's prime. There are better tools freely
available (e.g. GMD toolbox), if only people would use them.
Stephen J. Bevan email@example.com
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.