Re: How to change default outcome of shift/reduce conflict?

[Hans Aberg]

At 13:56 -0700 2002/01/16, Scott Raney wrote:
>Natural language has always been a major headache for computer-science
>types specifically because of these kinds of token ambiguities.  But I
>wouldn't go so far as to say HT is an example of poor design (well, it
>does have its flaws, but this kind of multi-use token isn't one of
>them).  It's just much more English-like than is convenient for
>language implementers ;-)

One should remember that the formulas of mathematics were successfully
developed from natural language expressions. One simply found formulas less
prone to ambiguous interpretation, and more easily parsed, as they are more
compact.

For example, one could say "the function sine of the variable x", but it is
more  compact to write "sin x" with "x" in italics to indicate it is a
variable, and "sin" in upright type to indicate it is a constant.

So in this craze to just use plain English, one is also skipping over the
benefits of formulas and computer languages.

One idea that comes to my mind is that you invent a traditional computer
language with its logical accuracy, but on the same time ensures it has
proper English constructs. Then an editor tool could translate the English
into the computer language, and someone that wants to see the English
version could apply the tool to the computer code. I can see this before my
very eyes: a magnifying glass or "crystal ball" that one holds over the
computer language version, and displays the English version.

Then one can use the English version to naturally start developing in the
language, but also naturally pass to the more compact computer language
version.

  Hans Aberg