Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utcsri.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!greg
From: greg@utcsri.UUCP (Gregory Smith)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re:  questions from using lint
Message-ID: <2783@utcsri.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 16-May-86 22:32:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: utcsri.2783
Posted: Fri May 16 22:32:17 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 16-May-86 22:42:33 EDT
References: <501@brl-smoke.ARPA> <797@bentley.UUCP>
Reply-To: greg@utcsri.UUCP (Gregory Smith)
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Lines: 35
Summary: 

> Yet another convention, not endorsed by any language I know, is to dispense
> with the braces and let the indentation alone tell the compiler how to
> interpret the program.  (I came up with this idea after an argument on the
> "correct" place to put the braces.)

COBOL has something which is very similar from a compiler-writer's
point of view - hierarchal data structures are described by giving each
member a 'level number' - map 'level numbers' onto indentation columns,
and both systems are the same.

To describe an 'indentation structured' language as a grammar, you
could introduce the terminals 'indent_more' and 'indent_less' which
could be generated by a lexical analyzer, and would effectively replace
{ and }.

What about the following sort of thing, though ? ( this is
how I would write it in normal C ):

	...	if( vogsphere == fuddle && !blasted ){
			while( sixteenvalvedualoverheadcam( bleen ) == '?')
				infriddle( batman.utility_belt );
			if( total_confusion_estimated > MAX_CONFUSION )
				printf(
"Well I think you ought to know that I am getting really confused by %s\n",
					reason_for_confusion[WOMBAT]
				);
			return SAY_WHAT;
		}else post_to_net_lang_c( silly_stuff_like_this );

>:-)

-- 
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" - Vroomfondel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Smith     University of Toronto      UUCP: ..utzoo!utcsri!greg