develooper Front page | perl.bootstrap | Postings from July 2000

Re: LALR (was Re: Working Group Proposal)

Dan Sugalski
July 24, 2000 10:01
Re: LALR (was Re: Working Group Proposal)
Message ID:
At 12:43 PM 7/24/00 -0400, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 12:34:19PM -0400, wrote:
> > horos wrote:
> > > LALR would be awesome, I would even say essential. It strikes at the 
> heart of
> > > the complaint people have of perl being a 'messy' language, puts it 
> on the the
> > > same playing field as Java and Python.
> >
> > That would tantamount to Perl (aka Larry, aka the Perl community) saying,
> > "We were wrong, Java and Python were right."  But we weren't wrong.
>Why can't perl ultimately support multiple syntax conventions?  Why
>can't the lexer/parser be pluggable?

Might as well go all the way, then--separate out the lexer/parser, the bit 
that turns the parsed syntax into an optree, the optimizer, and the backend 
that actually executes perl. Which, thinking about it, isn't that bad an 
idea, since the costs you'd pay for hard separation wouldn't hit all that 
often, and we could end up with specialized segments for specialized 
purposes. (Like, say, an optimizer that was really good put took ages to 
spit out the optree (or bytecode, or whatever), unsuitable for on-the-fly 
program parsing/execution, but real handy for precompiling libraries and 
big programs...)

Anyone care to put together an RFPC for me on this one? (Seeing as it 
likely falls within my purview, after all)


--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski                          even samurai                         have teddy bears and even
                                      teddy bears get drunk Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About