On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 06:09 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > | > It's possible that C++ doesn't require unbounded lookahead > | > | No, it's not. > | In fact, if you'd read the language grammar definition, you'd discover > | you could pretty produce the anti-program with some work. > | That given any k, it produces a C++ program that cannot be parsed with > | an LR(k) parser. > | > | Unless you are going to refute that this is possible (and it has been > | done before, so trying to refute it would just make you look sily), this > | proves that C++ is not an LR(k) language. > > Then the final solution with better compilation space-time and valid grammar > is to kill the evil standard C++ and to make a new standard D++ compatible > with LALR(1) or LL(1) languages. > (e.g. as Delphi or Object Pascal but using the C/C++-like style) >
We'll get right on that.
