|[3 earlier articles]|
|Re: Recursive Descent Parsers and YACC Bruce.Hoult@actrix.co.nz (1990-11-18)|
|Re: Recursive Descent Parsers and YACC firstname.lastname@example.org (1990-11-20)|
|Re: Recursive Descent Parsers and YACC email@example.com (1990-11-17)|
|Re: Recursive Descent Parsers and YACC firstname.lastname@example.org (1990-11-17)|
|Re: Recursive Descent Parsers and YACC mailrus!sharkey!hela!iti.org!dhw@uunet.UU.NETid AA (1990-11-20)|
|Recursive Descent Parsers and YACC email@example.com (Josef Grosch) (1990-11-22)|
|Re: Recursive Descent Parsers and YACC firstname.lastname@example.org (1990-11-23)|
|Recursive Descent Parsers and YACC email@example.com (Jeff Prothero) (1990-11-23)|
|Re: Recursive Descent Parsers and YACC firstname.lastname@example.org (1990-11-26)|
|Re: Recursive Descent Parsers and YACC email@example.com (1990-11-26)|
|Re: Recursive Descent Parsers and YACC firstname.lastname@example.org (1990-11-26)|
|From:||email@example.com (Mike Percy)|
|Keywords:||parse, yacc, design, question|
|Organization:||Clemson University, Clemson, SC|
|References:||<F7pfirstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||23 Nov 90 16:31:03 GMT|
email@example.com (David Taylor) writes:
>firstname.lastname@example.org (Mike Percy) writes:
[some of my comments WRT RD parsers]
>Recursive descent parser == LL(0)
My references mention only that RD parsers are used with "extended-tree
grammars," which are then defined. Perhaps I'm using the worng
references, or have missed something, but I never noticed that RD ==
>LR(1) is LESS restrictive.
No argument there.
>You can still use a grammar with yacc that has some conflicts as it
>has some simple rules for conflict resolution. Some of these
>recursive descent parser generators that you mention probably use
>similar rules for conflict resolution but don't bother to tell you
>about their use.
Actually, doesn't yacc and its ilk use LALR? LALR can introduce
conflicts that aren't in LR. As for conflict resolution methods, I'm
sure that they all do similar things.
>Look up some of the compiler theory ... it helps when you're trying to
>design the grammar.
It would also help if the language designers would make life a little
easier... As for the theory, I do look it up. RD parsers weren't even
mentioned in compiler class, except by me. I was told we weren't going
to look at RD parsers. LL was defined, but not explored like LR and
Mike Percy email@example.com
ISD, Clemson University mspercy@clemson.BITNET
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.