> The best option is a clean and maintainable parser. Whether it uses a
> parser generator or not is comparatively academic...
Many years later ...
Clean is good for our health, dirty is bad for our health.
> --
> This is like system("/usr/funky/bin/perl -e 'exec sleep 1'");
>--- Peter da S
On 16 Mar 2005, Joe Buck stated:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 02:41:12AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Writing Hand-written recursive-descent parser miss-cleans the source code
>> and goes hardfully to maintain it!!!
>
> Not if you know how to write one correctly.
... and I must say that Mark's
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 06:09 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> | > It's possible that C++ doesn't require unbounded lookahead
> |
> | No, it's not.
> | In fact, if you'd read the language grammar definition, you'd discover
> | you could pretty produce the anti-program with some work.
> | That given
The following paper provides some background on the difficulties
encountered with parsing C++:
http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/irwin01generated.html
Abstract: C++ is an extraordinarily difficult programming language to parse.
The language cannot readily be approximated with an LL
or LR grammar (re
| > | > Do you demonstrate that "C++ is not LALR(1)"?
| > |
| > | I'll leave that to you as a homework assignment. Actually, C++ is not
| > | LALR(N) for any N.
|
| Nor is it LR(N) nor LL(N).
|
| > | Get out the C++ grammar and figure it out, it's an easy proof.
| > | Come back when you have pro
| > | > Do you demonstrate that "C++ is not LALR(1)"?
| > |
| > | I'll leave that to you as a homework assignment. Actually, C++ is not
| > | LALR(N) for any N.
|
| Nor is it LR(N) nor LL(N).
|
| > | Get out the C++ grammar and figure it out, it's an easy proof.
| > | Come back when you have pro
| > It's possible that C++ doesn't require unbounded lookahead
|
| No, it's not.
| In fact, if you'd read the language grammar definition, you'd discover
| you could pretty produce the anti-program with some work.
| That given any k, it produces a C++ program that cannot be parsed with
| an LR(k) p
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> | > Do you demonstrate that "C++ is not LALR(1)"?
> |
> | I'll leave that to you as a homework assignment. Actually, C++ is not
> | LALR(N) for any N.
Nor is it LR(N) nor LL(N).
> | Get out the C++ grammar and figure it out, it's an easy proof.
> | Come back when y
On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 23:41 -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 04:56 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > | > | Bison remains a good solution in many cases, especially for languages
> > | > | specifically designed to be easy to parse with an LALR parser (that
> > is,
> > | > | languages
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 04:56 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> | > | Bison remains a good solution in many cases, especially for languages
> | > | specifically designed to be easy to parse with an LALR parser (that is,
> | > | languages that don't look like C).
> | >
> | > Why don't we develop a "LR(k) /
| > Do you demonstrate that "C++ is not LALR(1)"?
|
| I'll leave that to you as a homework assignment. Actually, C++ is not
| LALR(N) for any N. Get out the C++ grammar and figure it out, it's an
| easy proof. Come back when you have proved it to your own satisfaction,
| and please refrain from
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 03:22:26AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Do you demonstrate that "C++ is not LALR(1)"?
I'll leave that to you as a homework assignment. Actually, C++ is not
LALR(N) for any N. Get out the C++ grammar and figure it out, it's an
easy proof. Come back when you have prov
| > > http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.1/changes.html
| > >
| > > New Languages and Language specific improvements
| > > C and Objective-C
| > >
| > > * The old Bison-based C and Objective-C parser has been replaced
| > > by a new, faster hand-written recursive-descent parser.
| >
| > Hahahahaha, W
> The best option is a clean grammar in Yacc/Bison!.
GCC had such parsers for over a decade, and yet they are being replaced.
Bison remains a good solution in many cases, especially for languages
specifically designed to be easy to parse with an LALR parser (that is,
languages
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 02:41:12AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.1/changes.html
> >
> > New Languages and Language specific improvements
> > C and Objective-C
> >
> > * The old Bison-based C and Objective-C parser has been replaced
> > by a new, faster hand-wri
> http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.1/changes.html
>
> New Languages and Language specific improvements
> C and Objective-C
>
> * The old Bison-based C and Objective-C parser has been replaced
> by a new, faster hand-written recursive-descent parser.
Hahahahaha, WRONG!!
It's one historical error
16 matches
Mail list logo
