Re: Is this a new idea?

I seem to have missed the first response:


clyde@hitech.com.au (Clyde Smith-Stubbs) writes:
> ...you can't parse code that contains references to such things as
> typedefs that occur earlier in the code, if the typedef is missing
> or in the middle of being edited....


macrakis@osf.org (Stavros Macrakis) writes:
> This is a C-specific problem: a bug in the design of C's syntax. Most
> other languages don't commit such foolishness, except of course those
> with extensible syntax.


True.


drw@euclid.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley) writes:
>Almost any language with an extensible set of operators is going to
>run into this problem.


I thought that's what he said? However, the solution is now clear. We
should all immediately abandon C and any languages with extensible syntax,
and perform an appropriate penance for having used such ideologically
unsound tools. A month of COBOL programming sounds appropriate.


And of course by switching to a non-extensible language we will
immediately get the benefit of instant compilation. I'm talking about
BASIC of course.


More seriously, the typedef problem in C does cause parsing difficulties,
but C is here to stay. Rather than pointing fingers at its design, it
would be better to look for ways of solving the problem at hand (which was
speeding up re-compilations).
--
  Clyde Smith-Stubbs | HI-TECH Software, | Voice: +61 7 300 5011
  clyde@hitech.com.au | P.O. Box 103, Alderley, | Fax: +61 7 300 5246
  ...!nwnexus!hitech!clyde | QLD, 4051, AUSTRALIA. | BBS: +61 7 300 5235
--

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