Re: Can syntax be enough? No need of semantics.

Andy Walker <news@cuboid.co.uk>
Fri, 18 Sep 2009 18:01:16 +0100

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Can syntax be enough? No need of semantics. sinu.nayak2001@gmail.com (Srinu) (2009-09-13)
Re: Can syntax be enough? No need of semantics. quinn_jackson2004@yahoo.ca (Quinn Tyler Jackson) (2009-09-18)
Re: Can syntax be enough? No need of semantics. news@cuboid.co.uk (Andy Walker) (2009-09-18)
Re: Can syntax be enough? No need of semantics. anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2009-09-18)
Re: Can syntax be enough? No need of semantics. news@cuboid.co.uk (Andy Walker) (2009-09-19)
Re: Can syntax be enough? No need of semantics. dot@dotat.at (Tony Finch) (2009-09-21)
Re: Can syntax be enough? No need of semantics. torbenm@pc-003.diku.dk (2009-09-23)
Re: Can syntax be enough? No need of semantics. gopi.onthemove@gmail.com (gopi) (2009-09-24)
Re: Can syntax be enough? No need of semantics. gopi.onthemove@gmail.com (gopi) (2009-09-24)
[1 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Andy Walker <news@cuboid.co.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 18:01:16 +0100
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 09-09-062
Keywords: semantics, theory, comment
Posted-Date: 18 Sep 2009 15:29:21 EDT

Our moderator wrote:
> [I've never seen a grammar that could handle in a reasonable checks
> that variables are declared before use, and that types of subexpressions
> match. -John]


Never seen a reasonable two-level grammar? Fi!


Whether it's sensible to handle semantics that way is another
matter, just as we have to ask whether to recognise identifiers via
the formal grammar or via special code in a lexer.


--
Andy Walker
Nottingham
[Good point. So why don't we use them? -John]

Post a followup to this message

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