|GLR state of the art? firstname.lastname@example.org (Alex) (2011-04-05)|
|Re: GLR state of the art? email@example.com (Ira Baxter) (2011-04-06)|
|From:||"Ira Baxter" <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||Wed, 6 Apr 2011 10:33:46 -0500|
|Posted-Date:||07 Apr 2011 00:54:17 EDT|
"Alex" <email@example.com> wrote in message
> I'm looking into technologies allowing to parse languages from
> arbitrary CF grammars. I know there are several approaches, Tomita
> parsing being one example. I don't however know what is the current
> opinion on various such technologies is. Is there, for example,
> something which is considered superior to Tomita parsing by all
> interesting measures?
We use GLR parsers for our program transformation tool, DMS.
We process something like 40 eal languages with it, and it works extremely
well for almost everything, and we've found useful workarounds
(e.g, adding semantic predicates) for virtually everything else.
All I have to say is its one of the best technology design choices I have
I have no regrets at all.
Ira Baxter, CTO
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.