comp.lang.yacc (was Re: yacc sorrows)

[Martin Weitzel]

In article <751 at s5.Morgan.COM> amull at Morgan.COM (Andrew P. Mullhaupt) writes:
>In article <647 at mwtech.UUCP>, martin at 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 at mwtech.UUCP, voice: 49-(0)6151-6 56 83