|Q1. reducing grammar redundancy email@example.com (valentin tihomirov) (2005-02-20)|
|Re: Q1. reducing grammar redundancy firstname.lastname@example.org (SM Ryan) (2005-02-28)|
|RE: Q1. reducing grammar redundancy email@example.com (Ralf Lammel) (2005-02-28)|
|Re: Q1. reducing grammar redundancy firstname.lastname@example.org (Vidar Hokstad) (2005-02-28)|
|Re: Q1. reducing grammar redundancy email@example.com (2005-02-28)|
|Re: Q1. reducing grammar redundancy firstname.lastname@example.org (valentin tihomirov) (2005-02-28)|
|From:||"valentin tihomirov" <email@example.com>|
|Date:||20 Feb 2005 16:50:32 -0500|
|Posted-Date:||20 Feb 2005 16:50:32 EST|
Call me an optimization paranoid but...I have a question regarding the issue
of grammar generalization to be used in language tools.
 I'm familiar with several compiler compilers. The issue is in grammar
rules organization. In the desrcribing languages like LISP and XML it is
appealing not to mention they have some general "element" pattern. How can I
benefit from this fact eliminating the redundancy:
sqrt-> LPAREN "sqrt" NUM RPAREN; // LISP element synthax
plus -> LPAREN "plus" NUM NUM RPAREN;
Is there a known technique to define a basic "element" rule and derive all
the remaining rules by tuning this one? I mean, the endless parenthesis and
enforcing the tag name presence.
 The issue conserning SGML redundancies. Please consider a basic XML
element -> OPEN_PAREN "element" CLOSE_PAREN // opening tag
element // body
OPEN_PAREN SLASH "element" CLOSE_PAREN; // closing tag
As you see, the closing tag duplicates the appearance of "element" keyword.
I may mistake easily here, looks like a context-sensetive rule is needed
here in order to avoid the repetition. How can it be written in more compact
way? How can it be written in a more optimal form acceptable by parser?
[Bottom up parsers' speed doesn't depend on the number of rules in the grammar. There's
no reason to try to shrink them. -John]
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.