Mark Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 8:02 AM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 2. I'm increasingly convinced (however reluctantly) that mixfix is important
>> in a non-sexpr surface syntax.
>>
> I hate mixfix too. Since your conclusion is already reluctant, perhaps
> if you posted your rationale we could talk you out of it
MarkM beat me to the suggestion. We looked for and failed to find an
off-the-shelf parser generator that could be persuaded to do mixfix for
the Dyna language, and we ended up writing our own.
I think mixfix could be regarded as syntactic sugar to be possibly added
later, guided by experience using the non-s-expression surface syntax.
Programmers have real problems with just the standard operator
precedence rules in C-like languages ('&' vs '==', etc)! Given that
BitC is aimed at reliable software development, it seems like making the
parse of a particular screenful of BitC dependent on the state of the
current operator table (not visible on the screen) could only serve to
reduce assurance.
-Eric
_______________________________________________
bitc-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
