|Code generation from AST email@example.com (Lucas S. Silva) (2007-11-10)|
|DFA Lexer Generation From BNF firstname.lastname@example.org (Paul B Mann) (2007-11-10)|
|Re: DFA Lexer Generation From BNF cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2007-11-11)|
|Re: DFA Lexer Generation From BNF gneuner2/@/comcast.net (George Neuner) (2007-11-12)|
|Re: DFA Lexer Generation From BNF email@example.com (Paul B Mann) (2007-11-16)|
|Re: DFA Lexer Generation From BNF bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com (Robert A Duff) (2007-11-16)|
|Re: DFA Lexer Generation From BNF firstname.lastname@example.org (2007-11-17)|
|From:||Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>|
|Date:||Fri, 16 Nov 2007 20:28:41 -0500|
|Organization:||The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA|
|Posted-Date:||16 Nov 2007 20:38:17 EST|
"Paul B Mann" <email@example.com> writes:
> Does anyone know of a lexer generator whose input is a BNF grammar
> instead of regular expressions ?
> Paul Mann
> [DFA's aren't adequate to recognize BNF, which is why parser
> generators use a DFA and a stack or other more powerful machines. I
> suppose you could limit it to a BNF subset equivalent to regexps, but
> what would be the point? -John]
The point (of using BNF notation for a lexer) I think would be to use a
uniform notation for both lexer and parser. Seems reasonable, since the
one is a subset of the other. Some parser tools do this..
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.