|[3 earlier articles]|
|Re: LR (k) vs. LALR firstname.lastname@example.org (Jean-Marc Bourguet) (2004-08-11)|
|Re: LR (k) vs. LALR email@example.com (2004-08-15)|
|Re: LR (k) vs. LALR firstname.lastname@example.org (Clint Olsen) (2004-08-23)|
|Re: LR (k) vs. LALR email@example.com (Jeremy Wright) (2004-08-25)|
|Re: LR (k) vs. LALR firstname.lastname@example.org (Sylvain Schmitz) (2004-09-03)|
|Re: LR (k) vs. LALR email@example.com (2004-09-03)|
|Re: LR (k) vs. LALR firstname.lastname@example.org (Sean Case) (2004-09-07)|
|Re: LR (k) vs. LALR cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2004-09-07)|
|From:||Sean Case <email@example.com>|
|Date:||7 Sep 2004 23:51:23 -0400|
|References:||04-08-037 04-08-055 04-08-073 04-08-098 04-08-111 04-08-145 04-09-015|
|Posted-Date:||07 Sep 2004 23:51:23 EDT|
firstname.lastname@example.org (Kamal R. Prasad) wrote:
> 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
It's nothing to do with OO languages; it's to do with the trainwreck
that is C++ syntax. Lots of other OO languages can be parsed with
much less trouble.
Sean Case email@example.com
Code is an illusion. Only assertions are real.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.