Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ima.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!ima!johnl
From: johnl@ima.UUCP (Compilers mailing list)
Newsgroups: mod.compilers
Subject: syntax and error-proneness
Message-ID: <154@ima.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 17-Mar-86 12:05:51 EST
Article-I.D.: ima.154
Posted: Mon Mar 17 12:05:51 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 18-Mar-86 08:30:09 EST
Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept
Lines: 20
Approved: <compilers@ima.UUCP>
Uucp: ..!{allegra,decvax,seismo}!rochester!ken ARPA: ken@rochester.arpa
Snail: CS Dept., U. of Roch., NY 14627. Voice: Ken!

Question for mod.compilers:

Has there been any formal work on what programming language constructs
are more error-prone than others? Is there some kind of "Hamming
distance" metric for grammars?

Example of what I am thinking of: Pascal's END is error prone because
if you miss one, it could be a long way down the code before the
compiler discovers it. Ada's matched ENDs are safer.

Implications: make compiler construction tools work out such metrics,
when fed the grammar.

	Ken
-- 
John Levine, Javelin Software, Cambridge MA +1 617 494 1400
{ decvax | harvard | think | ihnp4 | cbosgd }!ima!johnl, Levine@YALE.ARPA

The opinions above are solely those of a 12 year old hacker who has broken
into my account, and not those of my employer or any other organization.