Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming > #2219
| 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) |
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 | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar
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