Related articles |
---|
language design tradeoffs kotula@milli.cs.umn.edu (1992-09-07) |
Re: language design tradeoffs torbenm@diku.dk (1992-09-08) |
Re: language design tradeoffs nr@dynastar.Princeton.EDU (1992-09-09) |
Re: language design tradeoffs raveling@Unify.com (1992-09-11) |
Re: language design tradeoffs weberwu@inf.fu-berlin.de (1992-09-13) |
Re: language design tradeoffs rob@guinness.eng.ohio-state.edu (1992-09-14) |
Re: language design tradeoffs tmb@arolla.idiap.ch (1992-09-14) |
Re: language design tradeoffs macrakis@osf.org (1992-09-15) |
Re: language design tradeoffs jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (1992-09-15) |
Re: language design tradeoffs anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (1992-09-16) |
Re: language design tradeoffs drw@euclid.mit.edu (1992-09-16) |
[31 later articles] |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers,comp.human-factors |
From: | weberwu@inf.fu-berlin.de (Debora Weber-Wulff) |
Organization: | Free University of Berlin |
Date: | Sun, 13 Sep 1992 12:34:30 GMT |
References: | 92-09-048 92-09-066 |
Keywords: | design, parse |
raveling@Unify.com (Paul Raveling) writes:
[sick macro trap in C deleted]
>then the extra ';' terminates the entire 'if' statement and the following
>'else' produces a syntax error. Or if you had left yourself open to the
>dangling else problem in nested if's, it's possible to get no syntax error
>but instead to get a surprising flow of control.
Sigh. The problem is not the ';', it's the syntax of the if statement. If
';' were nothing more than a statement separator and the empty statement
were allowed, we could write ';;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;' if we felt like it. Then
'if' must be terminated with a nice 'fi'and the problem goes away. Another
reason why explicit terminators like od and fi are a good idea!
--
Debora Weber-Wulff dww@inf.fu-berlin.de
Institut fuer Informatik +49 30 89691 124
Nestorstr. 8-9
D-W-1000 Berlin 31
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.