User loginNavigation |
archivesOO type systems and BNFsI'm looking at a type system that attempts to combine aspects of syntactic and semantic analysis. Say in a BFS, we have a grammar grammar production for a non-terminal like:
Now, to me, it simply looks like an OO type declaration with a closed set of subtypes; i.e.,
The BNF approach resembles ML datatype declarations, which exhibit sybtyping. The OO approach is more extensible (new sub-classes can be added anytime) but lacks the ability to define other aspects of syntax (adjacent elements). Also, we never really think of a type as something to drive refinement autoamtically (e.g., an automatic specialization from statement to method-call). So I'm wondering if anyone has ever tried to unify "types" with "grammars" before? I'm sure this isn't an original idea, but I'm not sure what keywords to google (term rewriting, transformational PL, ... haven't gotten me anywhere). |
Browse archivesActive forum topics |
Recent comments
14 hours 43 min ago
16 hours 31 min ago
17 weeks 5 days ago
17 weeks 5 days ago
17 weeks 5 days ago
23 weeks 5 days ago
1 year 11 weeks ago
1 year 11 weeks ago
1 year 11 weeks ago
1 year 34 weeks ago