Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.compilers > #2793
| From | Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.compilers |
| Subject | Re: for or against equality, was Why are ambiguous grammars usually a bad idea? |
| Date | 2022-01-04 19:23 +0000 |
| Organization | news.netcologne.de |
| Message-ID | <22-01-012@comp.compilers> (permalink) |
| References | (2 earlier) <21-12-022@comp.compilers> <21-12-026@comp.compilers> <21-12-033@comp.compilers> <22-01-007@comp.compilers> <22-01-010@comp.compilers> |
> [In original Dartmouth BASIC the LET was mandatory, but it was a considerably > smaller and fully compiled language than the later dialects. On the other > hand, PL/I made a fetish of nothing being a reserved word, e.g. > > IF IF = THEN THEN ELSE = BEGIN; ELSE END = IF; Fortran shares this property. This may sound slightly odd to people brought up on languages with reserved keywords, but it has a big advantage: You can extend the language with new keywords without making existing programs invalid. There is a cost to this, in several aspects: - More CPU time needed for parsing (important earlier, now it can generally be neglected). - More complexity in the parser. This cost is paid once, and by the compiler developers, not the users. - Similarity to FORTRAN may induce fear and loathing in computer scientists (the last remark is not to be taken too seriously :-) [Fortran barely had tokens since it ignored spaces outside of Hollerith strings. Having written a few F77 parsers, I can say it was possible to tokenize using hints from the parser about what lexical kludge to apply, but it wasn't pleasant. The yacc parser was straightforward other than figuring out when to send which kludge ID to the lexer. It also meant that one character typos could cause large semantic changes, notably DO 5 I = 1,10 is a loop while DO 5 I = 1.10 is an assignment. Legend says we lost a satellite to that one. -John]
Back to comp.compilers | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Re: Why are ambiguous grammars usually a bad idea? Why are languages usually defined and implemented with ambiguous grammars? Kaz Kylheku <480-992-1380@kylheku.com> - 2021-12-29 18:48 +0000
Re: Why are ambiguous grammars usually a bad idea? Why are languages usually defined and implemented with ambiguous grammars? Jan Ziak <0xe2.0x9a.0x9b@gmail.com> - 2021-12-29 16:05 -0800
Re: Why are ambiguous grammars usually a bad idea? Why are languages usually defined and implemented with ambiguous grammars? Kaz Kylheku <480-992-1380@kylheku.com> - 2021-12-30 18:00 +0000
Re: Why are ambiguous grammars usually a bad idea? Why are languages usually defined and implemented with ambiguous grammars? Kaz Kylheku <480-992-1380@kylheku.com> - 2021-12-30 20:08 +0000
Re: Why are ambiguous grammars usually a bad idea? Why are languages usually defined and implemented with ambiguous grammars? gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2021-12-29 18:41 -0800
Re: Why are ambiguous grammars usually a bad idea? Why are languages usually defined and implemented with ambiguous grammars? Kaz Kylheku <480-992-1380@kylheku.com> - 2021-12-30 18:14 +0000
Re: Why are ambiguous grammars usually a bad idea? Why are languages usually defined and implemented with ambiguous grammars? Jan Ziak <0xe2.0x9a.0x9b@gmail.com> - 2021-12-30 13:47 -0800
Re: What does = mean, was Why are ambiguous grammars usually a bad idea? Jan Ziak <0xe2.0x9a.0x9b@gmail.com> - 2021-12-30 17:10 -0800
Re: Why are ambiguous grammars usually a bad idea? Why are languages usually defined and implemented with ambiguous grammars? mac <acolvin@efunct.com> - 2022-01-03 19:51 +0000
Re: for or against equality, was Why are ambiguous grammars usually a bad idea? gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2022-01-03 21:07 -0800
Re: for or against equality, was Why are ambiguous grammars usually a bad idea? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2022-01-04 19:23 +0000
Re: for or against equality, was Why are ambiguous grammars usually a bad idea? gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2022-01-04 13:26 -0800
Re: Why are ambiguous grammars usually a bad idea? Why are languages usually defined and implemented with ambiguous grammars? gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2021-12-30 13:40 -0800
Re: why do people choose a language, was Why are ambiguous grammars usually a bad idea? Jan Ziak <0xe2.0x9a.0x9b@gmail.com> - 2021-12-30 20:19 -0800
csiph-web