Re: XPL Analyzer

George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net>
Fri, 09 Jun 2017 13:20:22 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
XPL Analyzer shoefoot@gmail.com (Shoefoot) (2017-06-05)
Re: XPL Analyzer robin51@dodo.com.au (Robin Vowels) (2017-06-05)
Re: XPL Analyzer gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2017-06-05)
Re: XPL Analyzer shoefoot@gmail.com (Shoefoot) (2017-06-07)
Re: XPL Analyzer acolvin@efunct.com (mac) (2017-06-08)
Re: XPL Analyzer slkpg4@gmail.com (SLK Parser Generator) (2017-06-09)
Re: XPL Analyzer gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2017-06-09)
Re: XPL Analyzer DrDiettrich1@aol.com.dmarc.email (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2017-06-13)
Re: XPL Analyzer jamin.hanson@googlemail.com (Ben Hanson) (2017-07-30)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 13:20:22 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
References: 17-06-002 17-06-006 17-06-007
Injection-Info: miucha.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="40900"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com"
Keywords: parse, history, comment
Posted-Date: 09 Jun 2017 13:47:03 EDT

On Wed, 7 Jun 2017 18:56:44 -0700 (PDT), Shoefoot <shoefoot@gmail.com>
wrote:


> :
>The XPL grammar analyzer
>generates something the author called MSP tables. I was thinking it
>would be more useful if it generated LALR tables. Since I am in the
>process of writing an XPL compiler I thought I could modernize the
>grammar analyzer with something that would make the package more
>useful.


In that case, (our moderator) John's suggestion is probably best ...
if you have the grammar, then plug it into an (LA)LR tool and have it
generate tables for you.


I'm not familiar with the book you mentioned, but if a grammar is
provided [even if not in EBNF], it should be possible to translate it
for a modern tool.


I don't know how exactly XPL differs from PL/I, but PL/I grammars are
available from a number of sources. You might find something that is
easier to work with than what is in the book.


George
[XPL is a PL/I subset cut down so it's reasonably easy to compile
and can generate fast code because it doesn't have to deal with all
of PL/I's corner cases. It's the first of a long line of such
languages from Cornell's PL/C to IBM's PL.8 -John]

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.