The paper investigates the following question: what happens if we try to embed the pattern-matching facilities of Snobol4 in a more conventional language? It shows that the facilities can be improved in some significant ways. However, the control structures that underlie pattern-matching operations are radically different from the usual ones, and this creates difficulties if the full power of the Snobol4 system is to be retained.
KeywordsConventional Language Null String Matching Substring Primitive Sequence Pattern Procedure
- Griswold, R.E. (1977): "Language facilities for programmable backtracking", Proceedings of the Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Programming Languages, SIGPLAN Notices, Vol.12, No.8, and SIGART Newsletter, No.64.Google Scholar
- Griswold, R.E., Poage, J.F. and Polonsky, I.P. (1971): The Snobol4 Programming Language, 2nd edition, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
- Harrison, M.C. (1973): Data Structures and Programming, Scott Foresman and Co., Glenview, Illinois.Google Scholar
- Irons, E.T. (1961): "A syntax directed compiler for Algol 60", Comm.ACM, Vol.4, pp.51–55.Google Scholar
- McDermott, D.V. and Sussman, G.J. (1972): "From Planner to Coniver — a genetic approach", Proc. FJCC, 1171–1179.Google Scholar
- Sale, A.H.J. (1978): "Strings and the sequence abstraction in Pascal", Report R78-4, Department of Information Science, University of Tasmania.Google Scholar