Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!udel!carroll
From: carroll@udel.edu (Mark Carroll <MC>)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: He's not the only one at it again!
Message-ID: <27159@nigel.ee.udel.edu>
Date: 11 Aug 90 01:07:54 GMT
References: <1990Jul26.020229.2205@murdoch.acc.Virginia.ED] <3481@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.a] <675@garth.UUC]
Sender: usenet@ee.udel.edu
Organization: University of Delaware
Lines: 30
Nntp-Posting-Host: dewey.udel.edu

In article <675@garth.UUCP> smryan@garth.UUCP (sous-realiste) writes:
]]_not_ a feature of our programs.  If I declare
]]	var x: 12223495872309457 .. 2345230549872039458720983475;
]]then any compiler worth its salt ought to be able to figure out how many
]]of its nasty little boxes to use, and how to exploit whatever instructions
].	.	.
]
]Do you have any idea what this does to the context sensitive grammar of
]the language? Well, most people don't use CS grammars, so probably not,
]but it leads to an incredible of snarl of constants, constant expressions,
]and constant values you would not believe. Or you would if tried to write
]the compilers based on things like Ada LRM.

Why?

This seems to be nothing more than Pascal like subranges combined with 
Lisp-like bignums. Bignums are more complicated to implement, but not
horrible. Subranges are completely trivial. And I completely fail to see
what deep and profound affects they're going to have on the grammar. Lisp
has dealt with Bignums in the syntax for years and years; I see nothing
in the addition of bignums to subranges that complicates it.

	<MC>


--
|Mark Craig Carroll: <MC>  |"We the people want it straight for a change;
|Soon-to-be Grad Student at| cos we the people are getting tired of your games;
|University of Delaware    | If you insult us with cheap propaganda; 
|carroll@dewey.udel.edu    | We'll elect a precedent to a state of mind" -Fish