|[8 earlier articles]|
|Re: Compiler Compiler Compiler firstname.lastname@example.org (Ingo Dittmer) (2001-03-27)|
|Re: Compiler Compiler Compiler email@example.com (2001-03-27)|
|Re: Compiler Compiler Compiler firstname.lastname@example.org (2001-03-31)|
|Re: Compiler Compiler Compiler email@example.com (Matthias Blume) (2001-03-31)|
|Re: compiler compiler compiler firstname.lastname@example.org (Toon Moene) (2001-03-31)|
|Re: Compiler Compiler Compiler email@example.com (Joachim Durchholz) (2001-04-04)|
|Re: compiler compiler compiler firstname.lastname@example.org (2001-04-04)|
|Re: Compiler Compiler Compiler email@example.com (Ira D. Baxter) (2001-04-10)|
|Re: Compiler Compiler Compiler firstname.lastname@example.org (Chris F Clark) (2001-04-10)|
|Re: Compiler Compiler Compiler email@example.com (2001-04-10)|
|Date:||4 Apr 2001 00:27:46 -0400|
|Posted-Date:||04 Apr 2001 00:27:46 EDT|
>> But seriously, C++ is the only programming language that I can think of
>> that seemed to need a non-traditional parsing method.
>Huh ? You probably mean: The only programming language invented after
>the rise of CS ...
The problem is the vague term "non-traditional." What I meant by this is
that C++ is not context-free. The expression/declaration conflict can
only be resolved by backtracking. This to me represents a quantum leap
in difficulty that was previously reserved for natural language parsing.
Other programming languages can be expressed as an LR(k) grammar, along
with simple static disambiguating rules.
SLK Parser Generator: http://pages.prodigy.net/dr_feriozi/
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.