Re: Anyone got an LALR(2) parser-generator ?

"John H. Lindsay" <lindsay-j%rmc.ca@trsvr> wrote:


> I'm working with a language definition that needs an LALR(2)
> parser-generator for a couple of good reasons;


Although it is quite common to find non-LALR(1) constructs in
programming language grammars, in most cases they are easily (?)
removed by rewriting the grammar. I'm curious about the reasons
to need LALR(2) power. What kind of language structure makes
such an unusual requirement? Wouldn't perhaps a full LR(1) parser
generator be enough for the task?


        Paulo S. L. M. Barreto -- Software Analyst -- Unisys Brazil
        Standard disclaimer applies ("I do not speak for Unisys", etc.)
--

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