Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| Do I need to invent a new type of parser? jeffk@ecst.csuchico.edu (Jeffery Alan Keasler) (1992-04-20) |
| Re: Do I need to invent a new type of parser? Jan.Rekers@cwi.nl (1992-04-21) |
| Re: Do I need to invent a new type of parser? jeffk@ecst.csuchico.edu (1992-04-22) |
| Re: Do I need to invent a new type of parser? stephen@estragon.uchicago.edu (1992-04-26) |
| Re: Do I need to invent a new type of parser? hagerman@ece.cmu.edu (1992-04-28) |
| Re: Do I need to invent a new type of parser? stephen@estragon.uchicago.edu (1992-04-29) |
| Re: Do I need to invent a new type of parser? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (1992-05-04) |
| Re: Do I need to invent a new type of parser? visser@fwi.uva.nl) (1992-05-06) |
| Re: Do I need to invent a new type of parser? keithc@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (1992-05-08) |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| From: | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Martin Ertl) |
| Keywords: | prolog, design |
| Organization: | Technische Universitaet Wien |
| References: | 92-04-087 92-04-098 |
| Date: | Mon, 4 May 1992 15:50:49 GMT |
|[Not to throw cold water on your plans, but 15-20 years ago there were quite
|a few languages which allowed to you define syntax on the fly. They all
|died. Makes you wonder, huh? -John]
Some are alive and kicking:
Prolog allows defining any token as binary infix or unary pre- or postfix
operator. (Some version of) ML has a similar feature. And finally there's
Forth, where you can twist the compiler (and the syntax) as you like.
Such features enable the programmer to use a syntax convenient for
handling the problem. However, there's the danger of unreadability through
overuse. Finally, they can cause some problems for
programming-in-the-large, which were discussed on comp.lang.prolog some
weeks ago.
- anton
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.