Re: *.mid vs *.midi

[immanuel litzroth]

Quoting Hans Aberg <address@hidden>:


> It is of a formal grammar, since it odes not define a sentence  
> symbol, nor does it specify context dependencies. For the formal  
> definition of a grammar, see books on compiler construction, for  
> example Waite & Goose, "Compiler Construction".

Please stop pretending you are have to educate me on the technical aspects. The 
C++ formal grammar while not up to mathematical precision is formal enough to 
base implementations on. It is what you get in computer science and the general 
idea is that it could be made precise but that is just not worth the trouble.

> implementation contains a preprocessor capable of macro
> substitution,  
> conditional compilation, and inclusion of named files.

I could not even find preprocessor in the index, just preprocessing directive. 
Care to give a page reference with this quote?


> This is what I am saying: one runs the preprocessor to get a  
> translation unit, which then define what I call the "language
> proper".

I don't care what *you* call it. Most people agree that source files hold the 
language constructs. 


> So what does that statement imply about order of module 
> imports,  
> making sure one is not loaded more than once even called for, in
> the  
> module declarations and recursive modules?

Yes, indeed. They do not seem to mention any of this, maybe because these 
things are not defined in the language.
Immanuel

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally - A spam blocker that actually works.
http://www.bluebottle.com/tag/4