Re: gnubol: subsets

[Tim Josling <TIMJOSLING@prodigy.net>]

Hmmm....

I was planning basically to have the parse build a tree. Everything then works on
the tree. Why?

* Keep it simple. The grammar is messy enough without lots of extra code in there.
The grammar can build a tree than is

* Forward references make it difficult to do stuff as you go.

* Even within one data definition, most of the phrases can go in any order. So
actually you have to validate at that level at the end of the data definition in
any case.

* GCC basically does a function at a time, and C does not really allow forward
references outside a function. So GCC basically does it this way. No doubt for
reason.

* Potential ability to divide up workload among people.

If the compiler is to be machine independent, then it will not know length or
alignment of etc. There are rules that a redefines is not allowed to be larger
than what it redefines. So maybe we need something here. But as little as
possible. The assembler should do this.

Tim Josling

RKRayhawk@aol.com wrote:

> ... I am somewhat in favor of trapping that
> kind of thing syntactically, it being a lexical scope issue....




--
This message was sent through the gnu-cobol mailing list.  To remove yourself
from this mailing list, send a message to majordomo@lusars.net with the
words "unsubscribe gnu-cobol" in the message body.  For more information on
the GNU COBOL project, send mail to gnu-cobol-owner@lusars.net.