|Crenshaw's Tutorial email@example.com (Colin Doncaster) (2000-01-19)|
|Re: Crenshaw's Tutorial firstname.lastname@example.org (2000-01-21)|
|Re: Crenshaw's Tutorial email@example.com (Jack Crenshaw) (2000-02-05)|
|Re: Crenshaw's Tutorial firstname.lastname@example.org (Joachim Durchholz) (2000-02-10)|
|Re: Crenshaw's Tutorial email@example.com (2000-02-12)|
|Re: Crenshaw's Tutorial firstname.lastname@example.org (Alan Fargusson) (2000-02-15)|
|Re: Crenshaw's Tutorial email@example.com (Randall Hyde) (2000-02-15)|
|Re: Crenshaw's Tutorial firstname.lastname@example.org (Joachim Durchholz) (2000-02-17)|
|Re: Crenshaw's Tutorial email@example.com (David Thompson) (2000-02-21)|
|Re: types, was Crenshaw's Tutorial Andrew.Walker@nottingham.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker) (2000-02-27)|
|Re: Crenshaw's Tutorial firstname.lastname@example.org (2000-03-23)|
|From:||"Alan Fargusson" <email@example.com>|
|Date:||15 Feb 2000 02:20:16 -0500|
|References:||00-01-073 00-02-017 00-02-038 00-02-061|
> C, C++, Java, ADA, SQL and Fortran are not LL(1) [Fortran is LL(k)
> with a large k].
I doubt that Fortran is LL(k). I don't think any of these languages
There is no way to say, for example, that a variable can be declared
once and only once in a LR(k) grammar.
Note that the first C compiler ever was a recursive descent compiler.
This was the one that Ritchie wrote for UNIX on the PDP-11.
[Please, let's not get into hair-splitting arguments about what's the
syntax and what's the semantics. I don't know of any parser that attempts
to enforce redeclaration rules syntactically. FYI, the Ritchie C compiler
was about 2/3 recursive descent. The expression parser was table-driven
operator precedence. -John]
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.