From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,ca0b11ae1c9a00cb
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: furlos@alumni.rpi.edu (Steve Furlong)
Subject: Parsing Ada and C++
Date: 1998/02/19
Message-ID: <6cgij8$2036@alumni.rpi.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 326495472
References: <34E7B551.115C289F@cs.utexas.edu>
 <Pine.BSF.3.96.980216123342.22587A-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
 <dewar.887669672@merv> <6cas6q$1ge$1@gonzo.sun3.iaf.nl>
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-02-19T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <6cas6q$1ge$1@gonzo.sun3.iaf.nl>,
Geert Bosch  <geert@gonzo.sun3.iaf.nl> wrote:
>Having read both Ada and C++ code, I find Ada code *much* easier
>to parse than C++. But I'm not a machine of course ;-)

Hmmph. Handling 90 or 95% of the constructs or cases is usually pretty
easy. It's the last few percent that kick your butt. Please note
that's a general observation; I've never attempted a compiler for
the full Ada or C++ language. (I did write a forth interpreter, but
since forth has approximately one parsing rule and three syntactic
rules, it's not quite in the same league.)


Regards,
Steve Furlong