On 20/04/16 15:04, Rainer Stratmann wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 20. April 2016, 12:40:19 schrieb Mark Morgan Lloyd:
>>> http://www.mikroe.com/compilers
>>
>> If you want to believe that BASIC- as originally implemented- and ALGOL
>> are related then go ahead and do so. But the politest thing I can say
On 4/20/2016 4:29 AM, Rainer Stratmann wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 20. April 2016, 07:05:10 schrieb Mark Morgan Lloyd:
No. Pascal and ALGOL are closely related, C and ALGOL are closely
related. Pascal and C are not so closely related.
As you can see here Pascal, C, and Basic are very close related.
Am Mittwoch, 20. April 2016, 12:40:19 schrieb Mark Morgan Lloyd:
> > http://www.mikroe.com/compilers
>
> If you want to believe that BASIC- as originally implemented- and ALGOL
> are related then go ahead and do so. But the politest thing I can say is
> that it doesn't make you look particularly
Marco van de Voort wrote:
In our previous episode, Mark Morgan Lloyd said:
Pascal and C are close related.
No. Pascal and ALGOL are closely related, C and ALGOL are closely
related. Pascal and C are not so closely related.
Did ALGOL standarize the preprocessor? The high reliance on
Rainer Stratmann wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 20. April 2016, 07:05:10 schrieb Mark Morgan Lloyd:
No. Pascal and ALGOL are closely related, C and ALGOL are closely
related. Pascal and C are not so closely related.
As you can see here Pascal, C, and Basic are very close related.
Am 20.04.2016 13:29 schrieb "Rainer Stratmann" :
>
> Am Mittwoch, 20. April 2016, 07:05:10 schrieb Mark Morgan Lloyd:
> > No. Pascal and ALGOL are closely related, C and ALGOL are closely
> > related. Pascal and C are not so closely related.
>
> As you can see here
Am Mittwoch, 20. April 2016, 07:05:10 schrieb Mark Morgan Lloyd:
> No. Pascal and ALGOL are closely related, C and ALGOL are closely
> related. Pascal and C are not so closely related.
As you can see here Pascal, C, and Basic are very close related.
http://www.mikroe.com/compilers
In our previous episode, Mark Morgan Lloyd said:
> >
> > Pascal and C are close related.
>
> No. Pascal and ALGOL are closely related, C and ALGOL are closely
> related. Pascal and C are not so closely related.
Did ALGOL standarize the preprocessor? The high reliance on preprocessor is
often a
2016-04-20 9:32 GMT+02:00 leledumbo :
> But your example doesn't show its use, probabyl you don't understand which
> comma operator I mean. Comma is used both as operator and
> argument/parameter
> separator in C, what I mean is the former, what you show is the latter.
> C's comma (sequence) operator is possible to use in Pascal
But your example doesn't show its use, probabyl you don't understand which
comma operator I mean. Comma is used both as operator and argument/parameter
separator in C, what I mean is the former, what you show is the latter.
Here's the
2016-04-20 8:58 GMT+02:00 leledumbo :
> At syntax level, there's no Pascal equivalent
> of C's comma (sequence) operator. Argument evaluation in C is strictly
> right
> to left, in Pascal it's up to the compiler. A silly but valid C statement:
>
>
Rainer Stratmann wrote:
That would be great.
It is not that difficult.
{ = begin
} = end
and the other stuff is quite similar.
Pascal and C are close related.
No. Pascal and ALGOL are closely related, C and ALGOL are closely
related. Pascal and C are not so closely related.
If you're
> That would be great.
Nope
> It is not that difficult.
> { = begin
> } = end
>
> and the other stuff is quite similar.
Syntax is easy, well once you have fully working preprocessor too, but how
about libraries? How will you convert scanf/printf/puts/etc? What if it uses
3rd party
That would be great.
It is not that difficult.
{ = begin
} = end
and the other stuff is quite similar.
Pascal and C are close related.
It could be made with a compiler switch to determine if the compiler is in the
Pascal or in the C compiling mode.
No more need to translate (huge amount of)
14 matches
Mail list logo