|[24 earlier articles]|
|Re: language design tradeoffs email@example.com (1992-09-19)|
|Re: language design tradeoffs firstname.lastname@example.org.OZ.AU (1992-09-21)|
|Re: language design tradeoffs email@example.com (1992-09-21)|
|Re: language design tradeoffs nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (1992-09-21)|
|Re: language design tradeoffs firstname.lastname@example.org (1992-09-21)|
|Re: language design tradeoffs raveling@Unify.com (1992-09-21)|
|Re: language design tradeoffs email@example.com (1992-09-22)|
|Re: language design tradeoffs firstname.lastname@example.org (1992-09-22)|
|Re: language design tradeoffs email@example.com (1992-09-22)|
|Re: language design tradeoffs firstname.lastname@example.org (1992-09-23)|
|Re: language design tradeoffs email@example.com (1992-09-23)|
|Re: language design tradeoffs firstname.lastname@example.org.OZ.AU (1992-09-24)|
|Re: language design tradeoffs email@example.com (1992-09-24)|
|[4 later articles]|
|From:||firstname.lastname@example.org (Alvin Starr)|
|Date:||Tue, 22 Sep 1992 03:31:14 GMT|
email@example.com (Stavros Macrakis) writes:
>>There are other possible conventions, as used in, e.g., Ada:
>>1) Use "end X" where X is the name of the opening delimiter, e.g. "end
>> loop;", "end record;" etc.
>>2) Use "end X" where X is the name of the named unit (e.g. function,
>> module, ...).
firstname.lastname@example.org.OZ.AU (Andrew Bromage) writes:
>The problem here is that you end up with an amazingly verbose language
>like Pascal, which is a pain to type in.
Is a little verbosity a bad thing? I work with a language(Turing) that will
allow short forms so that
if a < b then
x := y
the second is much harder to maintain when an 80,000 line program is
completly written this way.
>My favourite solution comes from BASIC, where the statement terminator :
>is an _extension_ to the normal business of using EOL do terminate a
>statement. More modern versions of similar ideas can be found in languages
Turing has no statment seperators/terminators.
>How do you allow the omission of the semicolon in languages like this at
>the end of a line? It's easy using a predictive parser because the end of
>the statement can be predicted. Does anyone have a "best way" of doing
>this with an LR parser?
There is no need for a language to require staement seperators or
terminators a little judicious design can get you around that problem.
Turing is an example of such a language.
Turing uses a PDA discription language called S/SL to help generate
various stages of compilation (scanning/syntax/semantic/code-generation).
S/SL claims to be equal in descriptive power to an LR(k) parser. At one
point in Turing's history a yacc grammer was generated to verify that the
language had no context sensitive features.
Alvin Starr || voice: (416)513-6717
Eyepoint Inc. || fax: (416)513-6718
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.