Re: is lex useful? Or how about these other tools...

preston@tera.com (Preston Briggs)
3 Jul 1996 23:41:28 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
is lex useful? kelley@phys.ocean.dal.ca (Dan E. Kelley) (1996-06-21)
Re: is lex useful? Or how about these other tools... inpact5@clr34el.der.edf.fr (INPACT5 inpact5) (1996-06-26)
Re: is lex useful? Or how about these other tools... scooter@mccabe.com (Scott Stanchfield) (1996-06-27)
Re: is lex useful? Or how about these other tools... bsspak@bath.ac.uk (P A Keller) (1996-06-27)
Re: is lex useful? Or how about these other tools... mkgardne@pertsserver.cs.uiuc.edu (1996-06-30)
Re: is lex useful? Or how about these other tools... daniels@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (1996-07-02)
Re: is lex useful? Or how about these other tools... preston@tera.com (1996-07-03)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: preston@tera.com (Preston Briggs)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers,comp.compilers.tools.pccts
Date: 3 Jul 1996 23:41:28 -0400
Organization: /etc/organization
References: 96-06-073 96-06-115 96-07-030
Keywords: tools

daniels@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (Brad Daniels) writes:


>Back in college (1988, I think), we used a tool called Linguist, which was
>a really nifty attribute grammar system.


>Hans Boehm was my prof in that course.


And I was grading... Linguist was written by Rodney Farrow (another
Rice alumn) and distributed by his company, Declarative Systems. I
believe that the company still exists, but I'm not sure if they still
distribute Linguist. Sure was fun to play with.


Preston Briggs


--

Post a followup to this message

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