19 Oct 2005 02:39:49 -0400

Related articles |
---|

Re: terminological problem (EBNF & regular expressions) paul@parsetec.com (Paul Mann) (2005-10-14) |

Re: terminological problem (EBNF & regular expressions) Meyer-Eltz@t-online.de (Detlef Meyer-Eltz) (2005-10-15) |

Re: terminological problem (EBNF & regular expressions) paul@parsetec.com (Paul Mann) (2005-10-17) |

Re: terminological problem (EBNF & regular expressions) paul@parsetec.com (Paul Mann) (2005-10-19) |

Re: terminological problem (EBNF & regular expressions) Meyer-Eltz@t-online.de (Detlef Meyer-Eltz) (2005-10-19) |

Re: terminological problem (EBNF & regular expressions) paul@parsetec.com (Paul Mann) (2005-10-20) |

Re: terminological problem (EBNF & regular expressions) Meyer-Eltz@t-online.de (Detlef Meyer-Eltz) (2005-10-23) |

Re: terminological problem (EBNF & regular expressions) paul@parsetec.com (Paul Mann) (2005-10-26) |

Re: terminological problem (EBNF & regular expressions) RLake@oxfam.org.uk (2005-10-26) |

From: | "Paul Mann" <paul@parsetec.com> |

Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |

Date: | 19 Oct 2005 02:39:49 -0400 |

Organization: | Compilers Central |

Keywords: | syntax |

Posted-Date: | 19 Oct 2005 02:39:49 EDT |

*> [The reason you might want to avoid recursive rules is so your*

*> expression can be encoded as a state machine rather than a state*

*> machine plus a stack. -John]*

Yes, that is true, but with an optimization, (i.e. removing

chain-reductions in the parser tables), I can remove the need for a

stack, in most rules. The stack does come in handy for some rules

though, such as nested comments, and the speed of the lexers hardly

diminishes at all.

Paul Mann

http://parsetec.com

Post a followup to this message

Return to the
comp.compilers page.

Search the
comp.compilers archives again.