Related articles |
---|
[19 earlier articles] |
Re: language design tradeoffs raveling@Unify.com (1992-09-17) |
Re: language design tradeoffs jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (1992-09-18) |
Re: language design tradeoffs e86jh@efd.lth.se (1992-09-19) |
Re: language design tradeoffs maniattb@cs.rpi.edu (1992-09-19) |
Re: language design tradeoffs tmb@arolla.idiap.ch (1992-09-20) |
Re: language design tradeoffs eifrig@beanworld.cs.jhu.edu (1992-09-19) |
Re: language design tradeoffs maxtal@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (1992-09-21) |
Re: language design tradeoffs jch@rdg.dec.com (1992-09-21) |
Re: language design tradeoffs nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (1992-09-21) |
Re: language design tradeoffs jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (1992-09-21) |
Re: language design tradeoffs raveling@Unify.com (1992-09-21) |
Re: language design tradeoffs alvin@eyepoint.com (1992-09-22) |
Re: language design tradeoffs kcoppes@aardvark.den.mmc.com (1992-09-22) |
[9 later articles] |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers,comp.human-factors |
From: | maxtal@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (John MAX Skaller) |
Organization: | MAXTAL P/L C/- University Computing Centre, Sydney |
Date: | Mon, 21 Sep 1992 04:03:01 GMT |
References: | 92-09-048 92-09-082 |
Keywords: | design, modula |
macrakis@osf.org (Stavros Macrakis) writes:
>At first, I found it strange that the end delimiter should have a
>"statement delimiter" afterwards, but in practice it looks quite
>reasonable.
I think this is the story: a MODULA II implementor decided
to make the ';' optional after 'END'. The normal syntax allowed
LABEL:PROCEDURE ... END;
LABEL:PROCEDURE ... END LABEL;
Also, in MODULA II saying the name of a parameterless procedure
invokes it, and you can have nested procedures, so the compiler
generated a call to LABEL in case 2 above instead of terminating
the procedure.
--
JOHN (MAX) SKALLER, maxtal@extro.ucc.su.oz.au
Maxtal Pty Ltd, 6 MacKay St ASHFIELD, NSW 2131, AUSTRALIA
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.