The thing inside of us that makes us go up is our attitude.
comp.compilers
Compiler construction, theory, etc. (Moderated)

  • Re: language design after Algol 60
    On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 19:08:57 +1000, Our Esteemed Moderator wrote: [snip] >[BTW, the current specification of Fortran is longer than that of PL/I.] > >[Perhaps he meant that it was impossible for *him* to master the language. >It does have some odd rough edges, e.g., give or take my recollecti

  • Re: Unum numbers
    Am 13.04.2018 um 05:13 schrieb Joshua Cranmer 🐧: > I understand that the newest proposal returns to fixed-width size. This and further simplifications IMO didn't make the last (Posit) variant much more practical. At least had I moved the variable-sized Regime bitfield to the end of the

  • Re: Language design after Algol 60
    From John Levine Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 10:56 PM > [Perhaps he meant that it was impossible for *him* to master the language. > It does have some odd rough edges, e.g., give or take my recollection of > the syntax: > DCL (A,B,C) CHAR(3); > A = '123'; > B = '456'; > C = A+B;

  • Re: language design after Algol 60
    From: "Costello, Roger L." Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 10:56 PM > Robin Vowels wrote: > >> Dijkstra's comment is nonsense. > > I am curious, why do you say Dijkstra's comment is nonsense? Dijkstra's comment is nonsense because it is possible to master the language. His

  • RE: language design after Algol 60
    Robin Vowels wrote: > Dijkstra's comment is nonsense. I am curious, why do you say Dijkstra's comment is nonsense? > [assuming that the quotation is literally correct] The quote seems to be correct: https://books.google.com/books?id=JdziBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=Finally,+although+the+su

  • Re: language design after Algol 60
    [...] >> Then by leaving out the bits not needed you end up with this: >> to n do ... > The control variable, i, must not be omitted. Can't answer for Python [the previous topic] or for BartC's own languages, but in Algol 68, as Bart referenced, it most certainly can, and

  • Re: OOP language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support
    >> An interface can be implemented by a (class type) component of a class. >> Then only the specific dependencies between both classes have to be >> implemented explicitly. In Delphi the "implements" keyword implements >> such object delegation, in addition to method delegation. > > But not

  • Re: OOP language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support
    Am 14.04.2018 um 19:40 schrieb George Neuner: > The problem is in unrelated classes that need to implement the entire > interface. Consider, e.g., serializable, or displayable - in many > languages you would end up reimplementing the entire interface in > every branch of your heirarchy, with

  • Re: language design after Algol 60
    Huh? Who says that? This example is from my language (inspired by Algol68), where the control variable /can/ be omitted. And it's not needed any more than you need one here for this line of code repeated three times: print "*" print "*" print "*" (For that matter, it can be

  • Re: OOP language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support
    On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 10:22:03 +0200, Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote: >Am 13.04.2018 um 02:51 schrieb George Neuner: >> On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 01:09:42 +0200, Hans-Peter Diettrich >> wrote: >> >>> Am 10.04.2018 um 20:32 schrieb George Neuner: >>>> On

  • Re: language design after Algol 60
    From: "bartc" Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 4:40 AM > But it is not adding extra syntax; if anything it is getting rid of it! > If a for-loop starts like this: > > for i:=1 to n do ... > > Then by leaving out the bits not needed you end up with this: > > to n do

  • Re: language design after Algol 60
    From: "Martin Ward" Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 11:10 PM > The IBM Language Reference for Enterprise PL/I for z/OS is 862 pages. The IBM PL/I for OS/2 Language Reference is 491 pages plus 121 pages for the built-in functions, published 1994. This reference includes a

  • Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support
    The IBM Language Reference for Enterprise PL/I for z/OS is 862 pages. E.W.Dijkstra wrote in his ACM Turing Lecture 1972: "Finally, although the subject is not a pleasant one, I must mention PL/1, a programming language for which the defining documentation is of a frightening size and

  • Re: language design after Algol 60, was Add nested-function support
    http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/kps2015/proceedings/KPS_2015_submission_29.pdf > > http://www.kps2017.uni-jena.de/proceedings/kps2017_submission_5.pdf Quote: "if the totally-defined C specified that shifting by the data width produces 0, the compiler would have to implement shifts more

  • Re: Language standards vs. implementation, was Re: A right alternative to IEEE-754's format
    harder. I think you just summed up C in a single sentence! Congratulations :-) -- Martin Dr Martin Ward | Email: mar...@gkc.org.uk | http://www.gkc.org.uk G.K.Chesterton site: http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc | Erdos number: 4