Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Expression sequencing/\"standards\"
Message-ID: <7287@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 5-Nov-86 16:36:29 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.7287
Posted: Wed Nov  5 16:36:29 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 5-Nov-86 16:36:29 EST
References: <4527@brl-smoke.ARPA> <286@ndmce.uucp>, <281@tuck.nott-cs.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 23

> >If you can find me a definition of *anything* (in English, of comparable
> >complexity to a general purpose computer programming language) which is
> >unambiguous, then I'll eat the manual this description printed in.
> 
> 	The Algol 68 definition is known to be unambiguous.  ...

It's not written in English.

> ...it is a shame that [W-grammars] are not more widely used -- many of
> the silly arguments one gets into over C and Pascal could easily be resolved
> by reference to the standard grammar, if one existed.

I believe that X3J11 specifically rejected use of a formal mathematical
definition of C (which is what a W-grammar would be) on the grounds that
while it would improve the precision of the definition, it would greatly
reduce the size of the audience that could understand the definition.
Joe Random User, or even Joe Random Compiler Writer, cannot be assumed to
be fluent in W-grammars.  Although there are complicating factors, it would
appear that languages defined in English have been rather more successful
of late than languages defined in formalisms.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry