martin@mwtech.UUCP (Martin Weitzel) (02/27/90)
In article <751@s5.Morgan.COM> amull@Morgan.COM (Andrew P. Mullhaupt) writes: >In article <647@mwtech.UUCP>, martin@mwtech.UUCP (Martin Weitzel) writes: [some lines deleted] >> >> Do we need comp.lang.yacc? >> >Yes, or something like it. The group should not be devoted only to C >(yacc-lex-bison-flex-...) but to language construction techniques in >general. But not too broad or too theoretical. (I have in fact found many people that could use lex+yacc with profit, but don't do, because they think theese tools are too difficult to handle, without enormeous theoretical background.) > >I think a pool of experience in this area would be an admirable >supplement to the anecdotal texts which are presently available. What >say someone calls for discussion. > >Also: There will be a 'name the baby' crisis here. comp.lang.yacc >seems to have no claim to be preferred over comp.lang.bison, or >comp.lang.lex, etc.. What about comp.lang.lang -- this would emphasize we are discussing languages to build languages .... (only an idea). > >Later, >Andrew Mullhaupt Any volunteers to work out CALL FOR DISCUSSION in n.a.n? (You have my 'yes'-vote, no matter what the name is.) P.S.: It would be time to redirect Folowups now, but as I have started to use the news system just a few months ago, I'm not sure to which group. -- Martin Weitzel, email: martin@mwtech.UUCP, voice: 49-(0)6151-6 56 83