Re: perfect hashing

Lars Duening <lars@bearnip.com>
13 Aug 2000 18:59:17 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[3 earlier articles]
Re: perfect hashing ceco@jupiter.com (Tzvetan Mikov) (2000-08-05)
Re: perfect hashing jsgray@acm.org (Jan Gray) (2000-08-09)
Re: perfect hashing jmochel@foliage.com (2000-08-10)
Re: perfect hashing fjh@cs.mu.OZ.AU (2000-08-10)
Re: perfect hashing parz@home.com (Parzival) (2000-08-10)
Re: perfect hashing rick@home.com (2000-08-13)
Re: perfect hashing lars@bearnip.com (Lars Duening) (2000-08-13)
Re: perfect hashing pmk@cray.com (2000-08-13)
Re: perfect hashing tej@melbpc.org.au (Tim Josling) (2000-08-13)
Re: perfect hashing bob_jenkins@burtleburtle.net (2000-08-13)
Re: perfect hashing intmktg@Gloria.CAM.ORG (Marc Tardif) (2000-08-13)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: Lars Duening <lars@bearnip.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 13 Aug 2000 18:59:17 -0400
Organization: Federation of Independent Wizards
References: 00-07-064 00-08-022 00-08-026 00-08-031
Keywords: symbols

> I guess that would be faster, but it seems "cleaner" not to mix the
> reserved words and the symbol table together. Going down this road in
> a C compiler we could even use the same symbol table for preprocessor
> defines as well ( has that been done?).


It has been done: the lexer of LPMud gamedrivers use one symbol table for
symbols, preprocessor defines and reserved words.
--
Lars Duening; lars@bearnip.com
                            http://www.bearnip.com/


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.