Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| (E)BNF Grammar to XML for LALR(1) parse table? Cox.Jason@gmail.com (2008-01-14) |
| Re: (E)BNF Grammar to XML for LALR(1) parse table? Cox.Jason@gmail.com (2008-01-15) |
| Re: (E)BNF Grammar to XML for LALR(1) parse table? englere_geo@yahoo.com (Eric) (2008-01-15) |
| Re: (E)BNF Grammar to XML for LALR(1) parse table? paul@paulbmann.com (Paul B Mann) (2008-02-15) |
| Re: (E)BNF Grammar to XML for LALR(1) parse table? scooter.phd@gmail.com (scooter.phd@gmail.com) (2008-02-17) |
| From: | "scooter.phd@gmail.com" <scooter.phd@gmail.com> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | Sun, 17 Feb 2008 01:38:41 -0800 (PST) |
| Organization: | Compilers Central |
| References: | 08-01-042 |
| Keywords: | parse |
| Posted-Date: | 17 Feb 2008 10:08:23 EST |
On Jan 14, 2:28 pm, Cox.Ja...@gmail.com wrote:
> I figured the most expeditious route to get a working parser would be
> to write my own, but I am not having fun manually generating the parse
> tables. In this light, are there any tools which will examine a
> grammar and spit out the parse table in XML so I can generate code
> based on that?
XML? Parse table in XML? I can see expressing the grammar in XML,
perhaps, although that'd be the most loquacious looking description of
a grammar. But the parse table in XML?
Maybe I'm missing something.
-scooter
[It sorta kinda makes sense if you had a family of parse table generators
feeding into a family of parsers, but given how tightly the table format
has to be tied to the parser, it does seem like a wee bit of overkill,
doesn't it? -John]
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.