From 458478747011493391 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,a96d3826c7356af2 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public From: Steve Clamage Subject: Re: Semantic-context keywords (was Re: Global "if" statement?) Date: 1997/05/06 Message-ID: <336F6D40.74E6@Eng.Sun.COM>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 239911858 References: <3366E8FF.3E38@ix.netcom.com> <5kb7if$b6q@fs7.ece.cmu.edu> <5kfha7$1s9@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <5kl75e$mbn@fs7.ece.cmu.edu> X-Original-Date: Tue, 06 May 1997 10:41:20 -0700 Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.std.c++ iQBVAwUBM2+Nkky4NqrwXLNJAQF3VgH/cXgsYlEA7busoHEKCGH4zgmgg0I2oBPA WosTqMVabGM6n0s2UD8ByK/KHu5QTp5vkvANT4oid3x/lGM0KTpkqQ== =zBB4 Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Originator: austern@isolde.mti.sgi.com David A. Cuthbert wrote: > > > Which brings me to another question: what are the guidelines that the > C++ committee followed concering syntax parsers? Would it have > complicated compilers much if certain keywords were reserved only in > specific contexts? Consider an alternate form of declaring a const > virtual method: > > int myMethod(int, char) is(const, virtual); > > That is, create a new keyword, "is," and allow virtual to be used like > any other variable outside of the is() directive. > > No, I'm not proposing this for C++; just curious as to the issues > involved. As best I remember, no one ever seriously considered keywords that weren't always reserved. Parsing C++ is already difficult, and adding unnecessary complications isn't going to win any votes. Error reporting is also better when the program context does not affect which words are keywords. -- Steve Clamage, stephen.clamage@eng.sun.com --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles: Try just posting with your newsreader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu comp.std.c++ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/faq.html Moderation policy: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/policy.html Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu ]