Re: Is C99 the final C? (some suggestions)
From: Paul Hsieh (qed_at_pobox.com)
Date: 12/06/03
- Next message: Paul Hsieh: "Re: Is C99 the final C? (some suggestions)"
- Previous message: Bjorn Reese: "Re: [OT] Polite cross-posting (was: How do I: Main thread spawn child threads..._"
- In reply to: Arthur J. O'Dwyer: "Re: Is C99 the final C? (some suggestions)"
- Next in thread: Sidney Cadot: "Re: Is C99 the final C? (some suggestions)"
- Reply: Sidney Cadot: "Re: Is C99 the final C? (some suggestions)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2003 16:01:04 GMT
ajo@nospam.andrew.cmu.edu says...
> > > My gut feeling is that this would effectively force the compiler to
> > > maintain a dynamic parser on-the-fly while scanning through the source,
> > > which would be wildly complex.
> >
> > Yes it complexifies the parser quite a bit. I don't dispute that.
>
> Not the parser so much as the lexer. Is "a %^&%*!^ b" three tokens,
> four, five, six, seven, eight, or nine? It depends on the semantics
> of the code we've already translated.
> Note that this is *NOT*, repeat *NOT*, an idea that will ever make
> it into the C programming language, for this reason -- as expressed
> in this subthread, it would break almost *every* C-parsing tool on
> the market.
So would adding &&& and |||. Remember that my premise is that if one is
motivated to add one of those, why not add in something more general?
-- Paul Hsieh http://www.pobox.com/~qed/ http://bstring.sf.net/
- Next message: Paul Hsieh: "Re: Is C99 the final C? (some suggestions)"
- Previous message: Bjorn Reese: "Re: [OT] Polite cross-posting (was: How do I: Main thread spawn child threads..._"
- In reply to: Arthur J. O'Dwyer: "Re: Is C99 the final C? (some suggestions)"
- Next in thread: Sidney Cadot: "Re: Is C99 the final C? (some suggestions)"
- Reply: Sidney Cadot: "Re: Is C99 the final C? (some suggestions)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|