Re: Is this a new idea?

macrakis@osf.org (Stavros Macrakis)
Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:10:00 GMT

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[7 earlier articles]
Re: Is this a new idea? dak@sq.sq.com (1992-11-04)
Re: Is this a new idea? dnl@macsch.com (1992-11-04)
Re: Is this a new idea? tmb@arollaidiap.ch (1992-11-06)
Re: Is this a new idea? henry@zoo.toronto.edu (1992-11-08)
Re: Is this a new idea? clyde@hitech.com.au (1992-11-07)
Re: Is this a new idea? dlarsson%abbaut@Sweden.EU.net (1992-11-11)
Re: Is this a new idea? macrakis@osf.org (1992-11-11)
Re: Is this a new idea? pardo@cs.washington.edu (1992-11-12)
Re: Is this a new idea? thinkage!dat@math.uwaterloo.ca (1992-11-11)
Re: Is this a new idea? andrewb@lynx.cs.washington.edu (1992-11-16)
Re: Is this a new idea? drw@euclid.mit.edu (1992-11-16)
Re: Is this a new idea? firth@sei.cmu.edu (1992-11-17)
Re: Is this a new idea? clyde@hitech.com.au (1992-11-18)
[1 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: macrakis@osf.org (Stavros Macrakis)
Organization: OSF Research Institute
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:10:00 GMT
References: 92-10-113 92-11-034
Keywords: parse, C

clyde@hitech.com.au (Clyde Smith-Stubbs) writes:


      ...you can't parse code that contains references to such things as
      typedefs that occur earlier in the code, if the typedef is missing
      or in the middle of being edited....


This is a C-specific problem: a bug in the design of C's syntax. Most
other languages don't commit such foolishness, except of course those
with extensible syntax.


-s
--

Post a followup to this message

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