Programming language syntax design (was Re: ... typedef problem)

Stephen J Bevan <bevan@computer-science.manchester.ac.uk>
Wed, 15 Jan 92 13:22:28 GMT

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Handling the typedef problem with a modifiable grammar bevan@computer-science.manchester.ac.uk (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) bevan@computer-science.manchester.ac.uk (Stephen J Bevan) (1992-01-15)
Re: Programming language syntax design (was Re: ... typedef problem) anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (1992-01-17)
Re: Programming language syntax design (was Re: ... typedef problem) bliss@sp64.csrd.uiuc.edu (1992-01-20)
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: Stephen J Bevan <bevan@computer-science.manchester.ac.uk>
Keywords: parse, design
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 92-01-049
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
languages :-)


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 bevan@cs.man.ac.uk
--


Post a followup to this message

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