Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!rutgers!cbmvax!uunet!mstan!amull
From: amull@Morgan.COM (Andrew P. Mullhaupt)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: yacc sorrows
Summary: Yes we need comp.lang.yacc, or something like it
Message-ID: <751@s5.Morgan.COM>
Date: 24 Feb 90 19:35:29 GMT
References: <7179@arcturus> <1990Feb9.171557.18465@tcsc3b2.tcsc.com> <647@mwtech.UUCP>
Organization: Morgan Stanley & Co. NY, NY
Lines: 22

In article <647@mwtech.UUCP>, martin@mwtech.UUCP (Martin Weitzel) writes:
> In article <22529@mimsy.umd.edu> chris@mimsy.umd.edu (Chris Torek) writes:
> >(Incidentally, this is another thing that does not really belong in
> >comp.lang.c, but in this case there *is* no appropriate group, so I
> >have not attempted to redirect followups....)
> 
> Do we need comp.lang.yacc?
> 
Yes, or something like it. The group should not be devoted only to C
(yacc-lex-bison-flex-...) but to language construction techniques in
general. 

I think a pool of experience in this area would be an admirable
supplement to the anecdotal texts which are presently available. What
say someone calls for discussion.

Also: There will be a 'name the baby' crisis here. comp.lang.yacc
seems to have no claim to be preferred over comp.lang.bison, or
comp.lang.lex, etc.. 

Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt