Why use strict parsing rules?

By -
In x86 assembly language, you write a move instruction like this:

MOV EAX, 13

My emulator accepts that. But right now it also accepts:

MOV EAX 13
MOV EAX,, 13
MOV EAX,,,,,,,,, 13

In other words, I only require that I can separate the tokens in the instruction somehow.

My question to you is: other than trying to be exactly like Intel's assembly language, why be more strict? So long as the interpreter / compiler can figure out what the programmer wants, why fuss over how many commas are used?

In other words, why not parse as leniently as possible, and only complain when a situaiton is ambiguous or otherwise unresolvable?

Comments

  1. Andy9:41 AM

    You could even accept MOVE.

    ReplyDelete
  2. John Dougan5:57 AM

    If this is an educational tool, I'd use strict parsing because most languages require it and I wouldn't want the students to develop habits that will bite them later.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more