|Why context-free? email@example.com (2005-10-06)|
|Re: Why context-free? cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2005-10-07)|
|Re: Why context-free? firstname.lastname@example.org (2005-10-07)|
|Re: Why context-free? email@example.com (Russ Cox) (2005-10-07)|
|Re: Why context-free? bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com (Robert A Duff) (2005-10-07)|
|Re: Why context-free? firstname.lastname@example.org (2005-10-08)|
|Re: Why context-free? email@example.com (2005-10-08)|
|[45 later articles]|
|From:||firstname.lastname@example.org (Nick Maclaren)|
|Date:||6 Oct 2005 18:51:03 -0400|
|Organization:||University of Cambridge, England|
|Keywords:||parse, question, comment|
|Posted-Date:||06 Oct 2005 18:51:02 EDT|
I have been thinking about a programming language, and have good
reasons to abandon context-free grammars completely. So what I am
asking is what reasons are there to favour them - I know of the
1) Dogma. Let's skip that.
2) Efficient, easy to write parsers. That is no longer a major
issue, and I can deliver that in other ways.
3) Diagnosability of errors. I can deliver that in other ways.
So WHY should I use a context-free grammar? Good reasons appreciated.
University of Cambridge Computing Service,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH, England.
Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679
[The best argument I've heard is that to a first approximation, CFGs
match languages that people can understand. Of course, since I write
everything in perl these days, I suppose I don't believe that, either.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.