peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (02/26/90)
Well, the idea of a comp.lang.yacc has come up.
What sort of name should such a group have? Well, what sort of group
do you want? Certainly lex, flex, etcetera should go in. And of coourse
bison and other yacc clones. But how about other extension languages?
C++ has its own group, of course.
Should the group exist at all? What sort of volume do we expect? Is it
a noise source in comp.lang.c (personally, I think not)?
--
_--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>.
/ \
\_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure!
v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'emv@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) (03/03/90)
In article <-4-1HWExds13@ficc.uu.net>, Peter da Silva notes the potential utility of a comp.lang.yacc, for discussion of things like yacc (and byacc and bison and antlr) and things that go good with yacc (like lex and flex). In a rough count I pick 58 possibly relevant articles from the 468 in my comp.lang.c spool. (I'm looking for "yacc", "bison", or "lex".) In article <22529@mimsy.umd.edu> chris@mimsy.umd.edu (Chris Torek) writes: >(Incidentally, this is another thing that does not really belong in >comp.lang.c, but in this case there *is* no appropriate group, so I >have not attempted to redirect followups....) Another group which would seem to have reasonable overlap is comp.compilers, is comp.compilers, where I count 4 of 22 articles. comp.lang.c++ has 30 of 164, some of which may be x-posts. Based just on traffic, there's certainly a market for a group. If Chris can't find an appropriate group to redirect a yacc posting to, it must not exist.... Consider the call for discussion started, with the working title 'comp.lang.yacc', with the understanding that the scope of the charter encompasses more than just yacc. --Ed Edward Vielmetti, U of Michigan math dept.