Xref: utzoo comp.lang.misc:7109 comp.arch:21675 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!mucs!chl From: chl@cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc,comp.arch Subject: Re: Algol68 Message-ID: Date: 25 Mar 91 10:55:23 GMT References: <3787@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU> <9168@castle.ed.ac.uk> <1991Mar22.013748.4944@ico.isc.com> Followup-To: comp.lang.misc Organization: Dept. Of Comp Sci, Univ. of Manchester, UK. Lines: 17 In <1991Mar22.013748.4944@ico.isc.com> rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: >it to answer a question. (Particularly in the revised report, chasing down >all the myriad productions sent you all over the language...and the worst >of it was that the simple concept "this is not allowed" was expressed as >giving you something to search for, which didn't exist! If it came down >to MURF MORFETY FOOBLE REFFOOBLETY, and you couldn't find a definition for >that, it wasn't legal.) Not at all. We carefully arranged for the production rules to be cross referenced (both forwards and backwards). So if you wanted to know where or whether some rule was defined the cross reference pointed you to a finite number of places where it could be, and even warned you if there was a blind alley. I know of no subsequent language definition which has cross referenced its grammar so thoroughly.