Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > comp.programming > #2219

Re: more keywords?

From "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org>
Newsgroups comp.programming
References <501d0c47-7d99-4252-a5bb-4abc69c4cda5@googlegroups.com>
Subject Re: more keywords?
Date 2012-09-15 11:02 +0100
Message-ID <RI6dnWNORolXz8nNnZ2dnUVZ7vGdnZ2d@bt.com> (permalink)

Show all headers | View raw


bob wrote:
> Would it be better to have more keywords in a language than to continue
> to reuse keywords where they don't make sense?

MS, in C#, have taken the approach of adding "contextual" keywords -- keywords 
which are only recognised as keywords in certain circumstances and can be used 
freely as identifiers elsewhere.

Not sure I like that approach.  Mainly because it apears to lead to a 
proliferation of keywords, of which I am not fond, and complicates the parsing 
of the language (which is an important task for tools which /should/ exist, and 
even should be easy to create, for any language).  But it is an option open to 
the designer.

Most language designers, though, don't do things that way.  Possible for 
reasons similar to mine, possibly just because the parsing tools they use don't 
lend themselves to that approach.

    -- chris 

Back to comp.programming | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Find similar


Thread

more keywords? bob <bob@coolfone.comze.com> - 2012-09-14 08:03 -0700
  Re: more keywords? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-09-14 08:34 -0700
    Re: more keywords? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-15 02:42 -0500
  Re: more keywords? "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> - 2012-09-15 11:02 +0100

csiph-web