|Parsers are easy to write (was: Re: Backtracking yacc) firstname.lastname@example.org (1992-09-25)|
|Quantum Parsing (was: Re: Parsers are easy to write) email@example.com (1992-09-28)|
|Re: Quantum Parsing (was: Re: Parsers are easy to write) firstname.lastname@example.org (1992-09-30)|
|Re: Quantum Parsing (was: Re: Parsers are easy to write) email@example.com (1992-10-03)|
|Organization:||Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee|
|Date:||Sat, 3 Oct 1992 16:52:39 GMT|
|Keywords:||parse, yacc, Fortran|
firstname.lastname@example.org (David Kastrup) writes:
>Ever written a parser for @#%$#@ Fortran?...
Can't say I ever heard of @#%$#@ Fortran. Must be a vulgar dialect or
>Write a parser for that, if you like. And building a recursive thing
>with backtracking and certain state values produces essentially nothing
>that a parser generator could not produce. Only that you may be less
>efficient. Only pretty simple grammars can be substantially faster
>parsed by a handwritten parser.
I seriously doubt you'll even be able to write a spec to a parser
generator as concise as the result to the technique outlined, much less
>[I wrote a yacc parser for Fortran, ... -John]
If you want, we can use the moderator's yacc source as both definition of
the challenge and measure of success.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.