Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| [5 earlier articles] |
| Re: Advice on Writing a Parser Generator rda@lemma-one.com (Rob Arthan) (2003-08-15) |
| Re: Advice on Writing a Parser Generator scherzin@fmi.uni-passau.de (2003-08-15) |
| Re: Advice on Writing a Parser Generator joachim.durchholz@web.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2003-08-20) |
| Re: Advice on Writing a Parser Generator cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2003-08-23) |
| Re: Advice on Writing a Parser Generator lex@cc.gatech.edu (Lex Spoon) (2003-08-23) |
| Re: Advice on Writing a Parser Generator jhayes2@oswego.edu (2003-08-23) |
| Re: Advice on Writing a Parser Generator usenet0@skora.net (Thomas Skora) (2003-09-04) |
| Re: Advice on Writing a Parser Generator robert.thorpe@antenova.com (Rob Thorpe) (2003-09-04) |
| From: | Thomas Skora <usenet0@skora.net> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | 4 Sep 2003 01:09:45 -0400 |
| Organization: | Compilers Central |
| References: | 03-08-027 03-08-047 03-08-077 |
| Keywords: | LALR, tools |
| Posted-Date: | 04 Sep 2003 01:09:37 EDT |
jhayes2@oswego.edu (Jeff Hayes) writes:
> SableCC is really good, but it is not a true LALR Parser Generator, so
> you have to deal with shift reduce conflicts in the grammar, and it is
> underdocumented, but I like it.
I know a group, which tried to write an parser for C with
SableCC. They discovered some (ugly) disadventages of its concept,
which made it very hard for them to write and enhance this parser. For
example they had to patch SableCC to resolve shift/reduce-conflicts
with an default action (for if-statements) and wasn't able to set
semantic flags in the parser.
Thomas
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.