Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 15:02:27 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG> To: John Merryweather Cooper <jmcoopr@webmail.bmi.net> Cc: tlambert2@mindspring.com, "hackers @ FreeBSD . ORG" <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: the =+ operator Message-ID: <20010812150226.A5074@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <20010811121857.A41578@johncoop>; from jmcoopr@webmail.bmi.net on Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 12:18:57PM -0700 References: <3B73F0BC.548D40B3@home.com> <3B757D14.B344931@mindspring.com> <20010811121857.A41578@johncoop>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 12:18:57PM -0700, John Merryweather Cooper wrote: > > Since when does any self-respecting compiler dictate object format? It's > brain-damage for a compiler to screw with the object format--so much for If you have ever programmed in Ada, you would understand. Since I assume you have not due to your comment, you should learn something more about languages and implementation than just "C" -- it makes one very myopic. Also, to put the in formation in the object format does not require changing it. Do you think all debugging metadata is standardized? One can put optional data in object files. > Prototypes are an overwhelmingly "Good Thing(tm)" > as behind-your-back implicit parameter conversion is death to serious > numerical work. At least now, some control can be exercised over parameter > conversions . . . Who ever said anything about not being able to do that in Terry's view? You are taking one statement and running wildly with it. > Two-pass lexing is also brain-damage. How to easily double compile time is > a single step. If applied to C++, we'd wait night and day for the compile > of just one port. *sigh* Do you really, really think most of the time you spend in compiling a C++ file is in the lexing step?? BTW, what do you think happens in C with the preprocessor? You are lexing things twice -- once by the preprocessor and once by the compiler proper. Quite often they share common lexer code. > Also, languages that are deliberately ambiguous are > maintenance nightmeres--maintenance perfers a language that is 100% > deterministic. You think C++ isn't ambiguous, and that new features haven't been added to it knowing that it blows ambiguity out of the water? > Seriously, my > understanding from K & R is that the C designers just thought it would be a > "nice feature" to allow both versions of the operators. "Nice feature" is > usually a synonymn for brain-damage in a compiler. :) *sigh*... little knowledge, great stretching leaps... > And that is as it should be . . . Lexing to be fast needs to be > single-pass. The same could be said for parsing. The agony over designing > a truly "standard" C++ compiler (not a single example of which exists) > should lay this out clearly . . . WTF are you talking about? I don't see the required connection between the two. Please tell me the compilers have detailed knowledge of their innerworkings. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010812150226.A5074>