Re: language design tradeoffs

rob@hoster.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere)
Thu, 24 Sep 1992 06:46:36 GMT

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[31 earlier articles]
Re: language design tradeoffs kcoppes@aardvark.den.mmc.com (1992-09-22)
Re: language design tradeoffs dmason@plg.uwaterloo.ca (1992-09-22)
Re: language design tradeoffs tmb@arolla.idiap.ch (1992-09-23)
Re: language design tradeoffs jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (1992-09-23)
Re: language design tradeoffs bromage@mullauna.cs.mu.OZ.AU (1992-09-24)
Re: language design tradeoffs alvin@eyepoint.com (1992-09-24)
Re: language design tradeoffs rob@hoster.eng.ohio-state.edu (1992-09-24)
Re: language design tradeoffs chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (1992-09-25)
Re: language design tradeoffs os360051@wvnvms.wvnet.edu (1992-09-26)
Re: language design tradeoffs plyon@emx.cc.utexas.edu (1992-09-26)
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers,comp.human-factors
From: rob@hoster.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere)
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept of Electrical Engineering
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1992 06:46:36 GMT
References: 92-09-122 92-09-131
Keywords: parse, design

jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
>In fact the only evidence available tends to the other conclusion - that EOL
>*should* be the usual statement terminator. Whether you consider this
>evidence strong or weak, it's the only evidence there is.


True, and certainly a point strongly in your favor. However, I think that
the conclusion most strongly supported by the data is that old contract
report favorite: `More research is needed.' Evidence from one site and
one language hardly makes a definitive work. :-)


SR
--

Post a followup to this message

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