Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!gandalf.cs.cmu.edu!lindsay
From: lindsay@gandalf.cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Algol68
Message-ID: <12543@pt.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: 31 Mar 91 01:48:05 GMT
References: <801@taniwha.UUCP>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon
Lines: 19

In article <801@taniwha.UUCP> paul@taniwha.UUCP (Paul Campbell) writes:
>... modern language designers tend to
>choose grammers that are lr0 (or slr/whatever) because they want them to
>go through yacc.

Some of us would rephrase that. We use lr0 (etc), because otherwise
the users get confused. CF the failed "user extendable grammar"
languages.

>By the way - for the record if you ever have to implement operators
>with changing priorities (ala A68/Ada) it's easy, ...
>... and at run time compare the priorities
>of the stacked OP and the one about to be shifted, use this information
>to decide whether to shift or reduce (ie resolve the conflict at run-time).

This does not sound like a language feature to be proud of. 

-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay .. temporarily at Carnegie Mellon Robotics