Marshall wrote:
> Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> > BTW, if you wanted to be context-free at semantic (not
> > syntax/grammar) level you'd have to abandon overloading
> > and require all objects to have fully qualified distinct
> > names, globally and locally distinct, note. I doubt,
> > anybody would like such language.
>
> Well, I disagree that overloading would be affected, but
> as for the rest, that is actually a decent point. Lexical
> scoping is exactly the same thing as context sensitive
> naming. I'll have to think about it.
It's good you realized this. Any language that allows one to
bind names is context-sensitive. Confusion arises because
/part/ of some language is specified in a context-free
grammar and then people forget that it is only /part/.
Received on Sat Jul 01 2006 - 14:06:40 CDT
