|Syntax tree generation under different parsing techniques firstname.lastname@example.org (Dave) (2004-04-21)|
|Re: Syntax tree generation under different parsing techniques email@example.com (Dmitry A. Kazakov) (2004-04-28)|
|Re: Syntax tree generation under different parsing techniques firstname.lastname@example.org (2004-05-16)|
|Date:||21 Apr 2004 00:50:47 -0400|
|Organization:||Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com|
|Posted-Date:||21 Apr 2004 00:50:47 EDT|
I would like to decouple my parsing and translation (here, "translation"
consists only of interpreting; I'm not actually generating code).
Currently, I'm doing predictive recursive descent parsing, but I have to do
some kludgy backtracking because there is one spot in the grammar that is
not suitable for this parsing technique. My goal is to employ some other
parsing technique and to generate a syntax tree while doing so (which I
don't currently do; as I opened with, the translation is inline with the
My question is: Regardless of the parsing technique used, is it always
possible to generate a syntax tree? It just seems intuitive to me that some
techniques don't lend themselves to the generation of a syntax tree. It's
hard for me to articulate why, but it seems that way. For example, if I
were to take the easy route and implement CYK, how well would it lend itself
to generate a syntax tree? What about other techniques?
Thanks in advance for any information provided!
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.