Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: BGB <cr88192@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: question about linker
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2024 14:49:27 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <vinqt2$bede$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vi54e9$3ie0o$1@dont-email.me> <vicque$15ium$2@dont-email.me>
 <vid110$16hte$1@dont-email.me> <87mshhsrr0.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vidd2a$18k9j$1@dont-email.me> <8734j9sj0f.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vidnuj$1aned$1@dont-email.me> <87ttbpqzm1.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vie0j5$1g968$1@dont-email.me> <vieun5$1mcnr$3@dont-email.me>
 <vihamj$2cflq$1@dont-email.me> <vihili$2f79m$1@dont-email.me>
 <vihu63$2ipg0$1@dont-email.me> <vii3kq$2kmc8$1@dont-email.me>
 <vikqvf$3fhce$1@dont-email.me> <jNm3P.7909$XuU6.3431@fx40.iad>
 <vinkbv$8r4i$1@dont-email.me> <vinm3p$9auh$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2024 21:49:39 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ca04aaa273285074a16173198055021c";
	logging-data="375214"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18yK7GAzw9/gwv+vUzG4mtgf7eDXQ0p8jI="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:i/Xi9xvlvA3L0H3eBwcu2uVFjTA=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vinm3p$9auh$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3212

On 12/3/2024 1:27 PM, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> On 03.12.2024 19:57, BGB wrote:
>> On 12/2/2024 12:13 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>
>>> Indeed.  One wonders at Bart's familiarity with formal grammars.
>>
>> In my case, personally I haven't encountered much that doesn't work well
>> enough with a recursive-descent parser.
> 
> Is that meant as a contradiction? - If so, how?
> 

Formal grammars and parser generators aren't usually necessary IME, 
since recursive descent can deal with most everything (and is generally 
more flexible than what one can deal with in a formal grammar).


Though, it seems I didn't read enough, they were debating about 
syntactic use of semicolons as a separator rather than parser writing...

But, yeah, in that context I think it is more a tradeoff between 
semicolons and syntactically significant line-breaks.


Can go either way, where line-breaks make more sense if one is wanting 
to design a parser like:
   Read one line of input;
   Break into tokens;
   Parse a statement.

But then the language generally needs an explicit line continuation 
character, say:
   c=func(a, \
     b, c)
And, debate whether it is better to have a semicolon on every line, or a 
line continuation to break up long lines.

Separators can serve to help avoiding expressions merging in unintended 
ways, but could be avoided or left optional if one is going for a 
simplistic syntax, say:
   proc A B C
   dst = func A B C

Probably with the language disallowing the creation of any complex 
expressions (and/or, one goes down the path that leads to either 
S-expressions or Smalltalk syntax).


> Janis
>