Re: What's the word for...

hagerman@ece.cmu.edu (John Hagerman)
Thu, 17 Feb 1994 01:59:02 GMT

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
What's the word for... tjj@netnews.summit.novell.com (1994-02-16)
Re: What's the word for... hagerman@ece.cmu.edu (1994-02-17)
Re: What's the word for... gorton@blorf.amt.ako.dec.com (1994-02-17)
Re: What's the word for... tjj@netnews.summit.novell.com (1994-02-17)
Re: What's the word for... lawley@kurango.cit.gu.edu.au (1994-02-18)
Re: What's the word for... PJENSEN@CSI.compuserve.com (1994-02-18)
Re: What's the word for... marcoj@iro.umontreal.ca (Marco Jacques) (1994-02-18)
Re: What's the word for... galibero@mines.u-nancy.fr (1994-02-18)
[11 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: hagerman@ece.cmu.edu (John Hagerman)
Keywords: theory
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University
References: 94-02-106
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 01:59:02 GMT

tjj@netnews.summit.novell.com (CNS-ksf-+Jordan T.J.) writes:
> Could someone please tell me what the word is for a language
> which can be written in itself?


I don't know the answer, but I'm curious: are you interested in this
academically or practically? The difference I mean is that while this may
be impossible in the "pure" form of many languages (eg, Pascal), it will
still (usually) be possible for real implementations of those languages,
due to the extensions are added to make them practical for exactly this
reason (variable-length argument lists, and so on).


- John
--

Post a followup to this message

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