Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!purdue!decwrl!labrea!polya!shap
From: shap@polya.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan S. Shapiro)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: C++ considered disenchanting
Message-ID: <4634@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 23 Oct 88 22:13:48 GMT
References: <441@grand.UUCP> <1000004@hpclscu.HP.COM>
Reply-To: shap@polya.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan S. Shapiro)
Organization: Stanford University
Lines: 10

In article <1000004@hpclscu.HP.COM> shankar@hpclscu.HP.COM (Shankar Unni) writes:
>You don't necessarily need an infinite-lookahead lexical analyzer or
>heuristics or anything, if you can do one thing in the lexer: recognize 
>typedef names IMMEDIATELY, and use a different token for typedef names.

Unfortunately, there are places where you cannot correctly determine
that a name should be introduced into the typedef table without
infinite lookahead.

Jon