|[4 earlier articles]|
|Re: Precedence based parsing firstname.lastname@example.org (Andi Kleen) (2003-12-08)|
|Re: Precedence based parsing email@example.com (2003-12-13)|
|Re: Precedence based parsing firstname.lastname@example.org (Rob Thorpe) (2003-12-13)|
|Re: Precedence based parsing email@example.com (Clint Olsen) (2003-12-20)|
|Re: Precedence based parsing firstname.lastname@example.org (Steve Meyer) (2003-12-23)|
|Re: Precedence based parsing email@example.com (Joachim Durchholz) (2003-12-27)|
|Re: Precedence based parsing firstname.lastname@example.org (2003-12-27)|
|Re: Precedence based parsing derkgwen@HotPOP.com (Derk Gwen) (2004-01-02)|
|From:||email@example.com (Hans Aberg)|
|Date:||27 Dec 2003 14:15:32 -0500|
|References:||03-12-035 03-12-056 03-12-097 03-12-113 03-12-130|
|Posted-Date:||27 Dec 2003 14:15:32 EST|
> Verilog expressions are complex and language is irregular and non context
>free. For example, scanner requires information from state of parser to
>distinguish tokens. Such language constructs are what hardware designers
This is a common lexer tweak in languages that are implemented with
context free parser generators. Since many strictly non-context free
computer languages can be reduced to context-free one by the use of
such tweaks, non-context free parser generators have in the past not
been in a very great need. The Bison manual contains though an example
how to use a GLR parser to handle a common C++ construct.
> In a more general sense, I have never understood why people insist
>on using weak push down autamata (PDA) machine parsing tables when
>programming languages provide the full power of Turing Machines.
I am not sure what you mean here: PDA's are used to implement programming
languages. Also, LL(k) (not only LR(k)) grammars, which you say you use,
can be implemented using a push-down automaton; see for example Waite &
Goose, "Compiler construction", theorem 5.23, p.123.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.