Re[2]: Multiple Syntaxes

[Terence Parr <pa...@jguru.com>]

Thursday, September 21, 2000, Daniel L. Rall hath spoken:
>> We can definitely make translators later. It's
>> not impossible to maintain multiple syntaxes
>> but it is becoming tedious because there's
>> no built in support. It will probably become
>> a maintenance problem. Maybe Antlr is better
>> at this.

> I've always been in favor of a single syntax.  +1

+1 for single syntax.

[Also, to handle multiple syntaxes, you can either put semantic
predicates into the grammar (less flexible/separable) or build a
common intermediate form (i.e., tree) that a single tree-parser /
engine handles.]

Terence
-- 
Chief Scientist & Co-founder, http://www.jguru.com
Co-founder, http://www.NoWebPatents.org -- Stop Patent Stupidity
parrt@jguru.com

Re: Re[2]: Multiple Syntaxes

[Jason van Zyl <jv...@periapt.com>]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2000, Terence Parr wrote:

> Thursday, September 21, 2000, Daniel L. Rall hath spoken:
> >> We can definitely make translators later. It's
> >> not impossible to maintain multiple syntaxes
> >> but it is becoming tedious because there's
> >> no built in support. It will probably become
> >> a maintenance problem. Maybe Antlr is better
> >> at this.
> 
> > I've always been in favor of a single syntax.  +1
> 
> +1 for single syntax.

The second syntax is going to disappear tonight
in another overhaul of the grammar.

jvz.

-- 

Jason van Zyl
jvanzyl@periapt.com