Re: LR (k) vs. LALR

kamalp@acm.org (Kamal R. Prasad)
3 Sep 2004 12:35:29 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[2 earlier articles]
Re: LR (k) vs. LALR Colin_Paul_Gloster@ACM.org (Colin Paul Gloster) (2004-08-10)
Re: LR (k) vs. LALR jm@bourguet.org (Jean-Marc Bourguet) (2004-08-11)
Re: LR (k) vs. LALR kamalp@acm.org (2004-08-15)
Re: LR (k) vs. LALR clint@0lsen.net (Clint Olsen) (2004-08-23)
Re: LR (k) vs. LALR jeremy.wright@microfocus.com (Jeremy Wright) (2004-08-25)
Re: LR (k) vs. LALR schmitz@i3s.unice.fr (Sylvain Schmitz) (2004-09-03)
Re: LR (k) vs. LALR kamalp@acm.org (2004-09-03)
Re: LR (k) vs. LALR gsc@zip.com.au (Sean Case) (2004-09-07)
Re: LR (k) vs. LALR cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2004-09-07)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: kamalp@acm.org (Kamal R. Prasad)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 3 Sep 2004 12:35:29 -0400
Organization: http://groups.google.com
References: 04-08-037 04-08-055 04-08-073 04-08-098 04-08-111 04-08-145
Keywords: LALR, comment
Posted-Date: 03 Sep 2004 12:35:29 EDT

Jeremy Wright <jeremy.wright@microfocus.com> wrote
> Or try Elkhound - http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~smcpeak/elkhound/
>
The author states that he wrote the GLR parser generator solely to
handle C++ language spec [and someone lapped it up to handle Java].


What exactly is it about OO languages that an LALR(1) parser cannot
handle?


regards
-kamal


---------------
Kamal R. Prasad
UNIX system level consultant
[Nothing inherent, but C++ syntax is ambiguous. I gather that was a mistake. -John]

Post a followup to this message

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