>On Sat, 17 Aug 2002 books at bofh.com wrote: >#>very particular sort of meaning. But programming languages are >#>very, very strictly defined. Unlike natural language, programming >#>languages very rarely possess symbols that have simultaneous >#>meanings depending on the context. How does a compiler handle >#>ambiguity? It doesn't. We define the rules so there is no ># >#Counterexample: ># >#sendmail.cf -> $: >#(as well as any number of other $ variables) >Is that a counterexample? Variables have, well, variable meanings, but >in any context -- at runtime -- only one of them will be in effect. >I'm putting this as a question rather than an assertion because I don't >know the language of this construction. But am I right here? I don't believe so. Sendmail is an ugly beast, and it's configuration file is, I believe, in it's own right a programming language. For instance, people have implemented calculators, and even the Towers of Hanoi in the sendmail configuration file. The example I'm thinking of (which doesn't make sense in context, but was valid when I was playing with this was): $: $: $: In which all three $:'s meant different things. -Jot