>What do you mean by ?choice to use a CFG??. They had no choice. All such computer languages are CFGs
All *such* languages? So, the algol committee just *had* to use a CFG because they were designing an algol-like language? Good catch Bob. I'm sure they felt compelled exactly so.
Even had they independently rediscovered CFGs more or less by independent means that sure is a funny way of putting it. If you had posted these "documented discussions" can you please remind me where to find them. Do they reveal that the committee in fact reinvented the wheel so to speak, just to reinforce your claim that they weren't choosing to use something already known? Or is it less clear than that?
R Hansen: >Remember that conversation about imaginary numbers and AC circuit analysis. I said something like ?Some bright person saw the mathematics of complex numbers and connected it to the mathematics of AC circuits and poof, reduced the mathematics of AC circuits to arithmetic!?
I won't accept your memory here; post a reference and I'll look at it again. I have a different interpretation of our fundamental differences in point of view: you are an either-or guy and I'm a both-and guy.