|Algol 68 think!mit-eddie!cullvax!drw (1987-04-22)|
|Re: Algol 68 firstname.lastname@example.org (1987-08-13)|
|Re: Algol 68 harvard!ut-sally!utah-cs!shebs (1987-08-14)|
|Re: Algol 68 email@example.com (1987-08-15)|
|Re: Algol 68 harvard!rutgers!petsd!cjh (1987-08-19)|
|Re: Algol 68 harvard!seismo!mcvax!doc.ic.ac.uk!cdsm (Chris Moss) (1987-08-26)|
|Date:||26 Aug 87 12:21:27 GMT|
|References:||<646@ima.ISC.COM> <648@ima.ISC.COM> <675@ima.ISC.COM>|
|From:||Chris Moss <harvard!seismo!mcvax!doc.ic.ac.uk!cdsm>|
|Organization:||Dept. of Computing, Imperial College, London, UK.|
In article <675@ima.ISC.COM> harvard!rutgers!petsd!cjh writes:
>Can someone propose an alternative to attribute grammars, as a
>way to specify context-sensitive syntax in a form suitable
>for machine processing? I would be interested to know. The
>answer doesn't have to solve the *whole* problem of compilation;
>if you can bite off a substantial chunk, that's worth while.
Definite Clause Grammars, or Metamorphosis Grammars to use an earlier
title, do pretty well. They are just a wrapped up form of Prolog (i.e. they
have full unification). Before you say that's even worse than AGs,
I've been comparing YACC/Modula runtimes with compiled Prolog times for a
small compiler recently and they aren't too different. (I'm not making any
claims about space! :-).
For details see my thesis (I.C. 1981) or paper in Lisp&FunPL Conf 1982.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.