Should the info attempt to be a Pascal language tutor ? ie. Should it cover FOR, WHILE, REPEAT etc. Surely most people coming to GPC will do so knowing Pascal from elsewhere. Since the world at large seems to prefer C (or Cobol), it seems to me that we don't need to worry too much about explaining the standard contructs as only those who have already chosen Pascal will be interested in GPC.
If we do want to include standard constructs, we might derive our explanations from one of a number of existing books eg. Programming in Pascal, by Peter Grogono. (Addison-Wesley 0-201-12070-4). This book explains the FOR loop by its equivalent code using WHILE. I know this is copyright, but it (or similar) should give an idea how to explain these basic constructs.
I think LALR(1) is the algorithm used for parsing. The syntax definition language is Backup-Naur Form, known as BNF. The Grogono book I mentioned doesn't use it, it uses syntax diagrams instead, but I'm sure someone can provide BNF for GPC.
Whatever goes in should certainly be checked for English grammar and usage by a native speaker, or one of the German members of the list, who seem to write extremely good English.
Regards, Richard.
According to Richard Kerry:
Should the info attempt to be a Pascal language tutor ? ie. Should it cover FOR, WHILE, REPEAT etc. [...]
It should cover GPC-specific aspects of these constructs, for instance
for x in [ 'A'..'Z', 'a'..'z' ] ... (* EP extension, unknown to BPies *)
for x [ j ]:= 1 to 42 do ... (* BP extension, disliked by EPies *)
or the current debate about global and local `for' control variables.
I don't know of any GPC specifica in `while' and `repeat', but those are relatively easy to explain anyway.
If we do want to include standard constructs, we might derive our explanations from one of a number of existing books eg. Programming in Pascal, by Peter Grogono. (Addison-Wesley 0-201-12070-4). This book explains the FOR loop by its equivalent code using WHILE. I know this is copyright, but it (or similar) should give an idea how to explain these basic constructs.
Just the problem: Copyright. IMO we should try to develop our own reference without looking into particular books - it will serve as an online reference, not as a book, in most cases anyway - and stick to a "clean room" technique.
I think LALR(1) is the algorithm used for parsing. The syntax definition language is Backup-Naur Form, known as BNF. The Grogono book I mentioned doesn't use it, it uses syntax diagrams instead, but I'm sure someone can provide BNF for GPC.
There are tools that can derive a BNF from the Bison source code. But IMHO our reference should not be too formal but rather a real-world guide to programming with GNU Pascal. A BNF language definition is not as urgent as such a real-world reference since the Bison source is available to anyone interested in the formal language specifications.
Whatever goes in should certainly be checked for English grammar and usage by a native speaker, or one of the German members of the list, who seem to write extremely good English.
I agree - and thanks! (-:
Peter
It should cover GPC-specific aspects of these constructs, for instance
for x in [ 'A'..'Z', 'a'..'z' ] ... (* EP extension, unknown to BPies *)
for x [ j ]:= 1 to 42 do ... (* BP extension, disliked by EPies *)
Yes, but they should be labelled as being part of EP or BP or GPC .... and which flags get the disabled/enabled ...
I think the documentation should be complete for what GPC does under any mode. (at least as the user views it.)
According to Phil Nelson:
It should cover GPC-specific aspects of these constructs, for instance
for x in [ 'A'..'Z', 'a'..'z' ] ... (* EP extension, unknown to BPies *)
for x [ j ]:= 1 to 42 do ... (* BP extension, disliked by EPies *)
Yes, but they should be labelled as being part of EP or BP or GPC .... and which flags get the disabled/enabled ...
Of course. That's what the "Standards" section is for.
Usually, no flags are needed to enable some extension, but the flags can be used to disable the extensions.
I think the documentation should be complete for what GPC does under any mode. (at least as the user views it.)
Agreed.
Peter
Hi Folks,
you are right. It was a mistake to release those reference sections in such a rush. I will try to do a better job with the second draft versions.
Cheers,
miklos
On Thu, 4 Jun 1998 richard.kerry@quantel.com wrote:
Should the info attempt to be a Pascal language tutor ? ie. Should it cover FOR, WHILE, REPEAT etc. Surely most people coming to GPC will do so knowing Pascal from elsewhere. Since the world at
IMHO, it would be good to cover everything. The reason is because there's always someone new to programming, especially in Pascal. It would be nice if the strong points of GPC besides its power (and the ability to literally do what C can do :)~~ ) is ease of use. It would definitely welcome newbies into Pascal programming, and apps programming in general.
See ya! Orlando Llanes
"Meine Damen und Herren, Elvis hat soeben das Gebaeude verlassen!"
"Look out fo' flyeeng feet" O__/ a010111t@bc.seflin.org /|____. O <__. /> / \ ____________|_________ http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Monkey414
-
Miklos Cserzo -
Orlando Llanes -
Peter Gerwinski -
Phil Nelson -
richard.kerry＠quantel.com