On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 09:53:52AM -0500, Thomas Dickey wrote: > On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, David Yitzchak Cohen wrote: > > The only authoritative source for answers to "what's this thing?" is > > the compiler itself. Since only the tokenizer, preprocessor, and a > > sure. however not all language interpreters give useful diagnostics. > Trivial things like an unbalanced delimiter are easier to spot when > it's highlighted. If lint were part of gcc (as the analogue is in perl, for instance), stuff like unbalanced delimiters would be easy to spot, as well. (VIM and EMACS users would even be able to program their editors to automatically balance delimiters in unambiguous cases, if they wanted to.) > > tiny bit of logic are needed to properly classify _everything_, the > > compiler doesn't have to do a whole lot before producing the XML document. > > I'd much rather have syntax highlighting that's always guaranteed to be > > correct or none at all; this take-me-with-a-grain-of-salt highlighting I > > find more annoyance than use, and any scheme that's capable of failing > > will always fail exactly when you need it to work right, as the sage > > Murphy pointed out ages ago. > > It would be nice if all of the computer languages were consistent and > well-defined, but that's not the case. A highlighter will usually be > a parallel implementation, for the obvious reasons, with the usual > drawbacks. A complete parallel implementation is fine with me, but a parallel implementation that's only a partial implementation is downright annoying, IMHO. - Dave -- Uncle Cosmo, why do they call this a word processor? It's simple, Skyler. You've seen what food processors do to food, right? Please visit this link: http://rotter.net/israel
Attachment:
pgpSCmeGh3QHa.pgp
Description: PGP signature