Re^3: Trinary Operator Semantics

The fact that you can't get a context-free grammar for Perl should be proof of that.

I wouldn't jump to that conclusion so fast. Human languages are not context-free. Giving a language a CFG certainly makes it easier for computers to understand it; it's less clear that it makes it easier for the human programmer.

Comment on Re^3: Trinary Operator Semantics

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Trinary Operator Semantics by hardburn (Abbot) on May 27, 2005 at 17:18 UTC
I don't know of any human languages that were consciously designed (at least, ones that are actually used by a significant precentage of the population, which discounts Esperonto and Klingon). They're always ad hoc. So is Perl, and that's what that statement was trying to prove. "There is no shame in being self-taught, only in not trying to learn in the first place." -- Atrus, Myst: The Book of D'ni.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^4: Trinary Operator Semantics
by hardburn (Abbot) on May 27, 2005 at 17:18 UTC

I don't know of any human languages that were consciously designed (at least, ones that are actually used by a significant precentage of the population, which discounts Esperonto and Klingon). They're always ad hoc. So is Perl, and that's what that statement was trying to prove.

"There is no shame in being self-taught, only in not trying to learn in the first place." -- Atrus, Myst: The Book of D'ni.

[reply]