Pascal can undoubtedly be shoehorned into the target of a simple, single-pass LL(1) parser. Doing so comes at a real "flexibility" cost, though. For example, do

Pascal can undoubtedly be shoehorned into the target of a simple, single-pass LL(1) parser. Doing so comes at a real "flexibility" cost, though. For example, don't try to define your functions in any arbitrary order. It won't fly. As a programmer, you will surely notice the limitations of single-pass LL(1) compilers. Nowadays, infix/Eulerian notations are generally targeted with at least an LALR(1) parser. The notational complexity in languages like C++ (in gcc) and C# generally even exceed what LALR(1) can handle. Apparently, their parsers need to be painstakingly hand-coded. In my book, that is clearly overshoot. Do we really need to create a dependency on languages that even LALR(1) cannot handle? What are you even getting in exchange? Debatable ...