Re: question about linker

On 12/12/2024 04:50, Janis Papanagnou wrote:

On 11.12.2024 18:20, bart wrote:

On 11/12/2024 16:51, Janis Papanagnou wrote:

[ dangling else ]

>
So here you finally acknowledge there may be ambiguity from a human
perspective.

  From a semantical perspective, not from a syntactical. There's rules
to disambiguate a dangling-else. And there's languages that designed
a syntax without an inherent semantical ambiguity (that would need to
be cleared by such rules).
 For (yet another) example; my K&R shows a syntax for expressions like
    expression := binary
   binary := binary + binary
   binary := binary * binary
 An actual expression   x = 2 + 3 * 4   would be "ambiguous" (without
precedence rules).

That doesn't look right to me; what page is that from?
For a table-driven grammar, I'd write it like this:
      expr    = term {op term}*
      term    = number etc
With precedence defined by the grammar, it might be:
      expr    = factor {{'+' | '-'} factor}*
      factor  = term {{'*' | '/'} term}*
      term    = ...
But it would needed a production (and a production name) for each precedence level.

(What a waste of time!)

Sorry for wasting your time; I didn't realise I was holding a gun to your head.
But your arrogant attacks on my remarks pretty much forced me to defend myself. My time of course isn't valuable.