Re: Q2. Why do you split a monolithic grammar into the lexing and parsing rules?

"valentin tihomirov" <spam@abelectron.com> wrote in message
> > I'm assuming this would be like being able to do this in C:
> > int else = 4;
> > printf("%i",else);
>
> Nice example, I was thinking of pascalish
> procedure do();
>
>
>
> > A character is a different class of object than a word, and the two
> > operate on different levels.
>
> One bit, one soound or one char is not enaught to encode all the
> notions in the world. Fortunately for mankind, the ancient Latins, as
> opposed to Chinese, were wise enough to construct the words from
> letters. You right, most of the words encode notions in natural
> languages, where the letters confom to sounds in the oral speach
> (English language has lost this natural relationship). Such separation
> looks natural in the human world.


There's a very interesting paper in a recent issue of the scientific
journal Nature whose conclusion is that because the Chinese language
is processed by the visual center of the brain instead of the auditory
one that Chinese students enjoy a ~5 point advantage on IQ tests!
There's no way to determine -- at least right now -- if this actually
makes them smarter, but they will appear so in some circumstances.


As a Westerner who's learned (some) Japanese (a very interesting
amalgam of both ideographic and phonetic components), I can assure you
that having the ideograph encode both the meaning and the sound isn't
really a drawback.


        Norm
[Chinese has the unusual characteristic that the spoken languages are
as different as French and Portugese, but they're all written the
same. Perhaps there's an inspiration for us programmers there. -John]

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