2-level grammar for proposed extensions

[chris hermansen]

Hi Paul, everyone

On Tue, May 5, 2026 at 11:27 AM Paul Leyland <paul.leyland@gmail.com> wrote:

> Over the last few weeks quite a few extensions to the language specified
> in the RR have been proposed.
>
> Personally I believe that any and all extensions which are adopted
> should be specified with equal rigour and in the same style. As we all
> accept, it is the rigour of the RR which makes Algol 68 so different.
> Consider the other end of the spectrum, where Perl is defined as
> anything which gets intact through the interpreter. I believe that it
> has been literally impossible to specify Perl formally for any
> interpreter released in the last decade or few.
>
> On the list I have noted that some have been so been specified but
> haven't seen two-level grammar specs for all of them. Please note that
> this is a statement of my ignorance, not that the specs have not been
> written.
>
> Comments?


 I for one am certainly guilty of the above!  I think it's a good idea, as
it proves the syntactic and semantic interpretation of any proposed
extension are plausible.

I think I might try to do this with regard to the modal business and see
where I get.  If nothing else it will increase my understanding of the
whole AvW grammar.

-- 
Chris Hermansen · clhermansen "at" gmail "dot" com

C'est ma façon de parler.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/algol68/attachments/20260505/a676add3/attachment.htm>