Hello, In my limited experience, the Adga language has nice support for mixfix. I found a little information on the design and implementation of mixfix here:
http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~nad/publications/danielsson-aim8-talk.handout.pdf But it's a bit terse to read with out the accompanying verbal presentation. Plus, it was written before the code was actually implemented. But, if you drop the authors a note, perhaps they can give a some additional information. - jeremy At Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:02:18 -0500, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote: > > [1 <multipart/alternative (7bit)>] > [1.1 <text/plain; ISO-8859-1 (7bit)>] > The BitC s-expression syntax is now showing a lot of strain. While > s-expressions make a great deal of sense as an expression syntax, they > aren't that great for declarations. The most recent example is that we > wanted to discriminator tag values in unions, and there doesn't seem to be > any graceful way to do it. > > You all know that I've done some preliminary work toward a post-sexpr > surface syntax. Most of it looks straightforward. There are two issues that > I have run into: > > 1. I am having difficulty coming up with a sensible syntax for loops. The > statement-style syntax doesn't seem to lend itself to a functional > (non-stateful) loop idiom. I would appreciate suggestions on this. > > 2. I'm increasingly convinced (however reluctantly) that mixfix is important > in a non-sexpr surface syntax. The problem with this is that (a) there are > no parser generators that seem to support this and (b) writing a parser for > the non-sexpr syntax by hand is probably not the best way to coverge on a > syntax. Once the syntax is stable it's not a problem, but hand-written > parsers do not tend to be easily modified or easily validated. > > Can anyone point me at a parser generator that can be made to handle mixfix, > or suggest some means by which an existing parser generator might be kludged > into service at the semantic actions level? As a concrete example, I have > considered a parse strategy in which the parser builds a list rather than a > tree and the semantic action pass decides how to recover a tree from the > result. Are there examples of this sort of thing being done successfully? > > I'm prepared to build a parser generator; I would just prefer not to do one > that is excessively clever. :-) > > shap > [1.2 <text/html; ISO-8859-1 (quoted-printable)>] > > [2 <text/plain; us-ascii (7bit)>] > _______________________________________________ > bitc-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
