|Suitability of PCCTS for C++ work firstname.lastname@example.org (Stephen Hite) (1992-04-24)|
|Suitability of PCCTS for Ada work email@example.com (1992-04-29)|
|From:||Stephen Hite <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Keywords:||tools, C++, question|
|Date:||Fri, 24 Apr 1992 15:03:25 GMT|
I just picked up the PCCTS 1.0 package at en.ecn.purdue.ecu (in
carp/PCCTS) and am currently in the midst of absorbing its syntax and
capabilities. Two things that I'd like it to be able to do are:
1. Usable with C++ code.
2. Parse a C++ grammar.
The authors did not leave a private e-mail address so I'm posting here in
hopes one of them will respond to this.
I like the EBNF notation and the features it provides appears (on first
impression) to make writing compilers/interpreters easier than using
YACC/LEX. The PCCTS documentation discusses the advantages of using a
top-down parser generator approach but I noticed they did not mention its
disadvantages (or rather the strengths of bottom-up parsing that PCCTS
will lack). Are there any?
If anyone has any positive/negative experiences using PCCTS, I think
this group would be interested in hearing about them. Thanks.
P.S. The grammar descriptions (.g files) for ANTLR and DLG are missing
from the source code distribution (Why?).
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.