|is lex useful? email@example.com (Dan E. Kelley) (1996-06-21)|
|Re: is lex useful? Or how about these other tools... firstname.lastname@example.org (INPACT5 inpact5) (1996-06-26)|
|Re: is lex useful? Or how about these other tools... email@example.com (Scott Stanchfield) (1996-06-27)|
|Re: is lex useful? Or how about these other tools... firstname.lastname@example.org (P A Keller) (1996-06-27)|
|Re: is lex useful? Or how about these other tools... email@example.com (1996-06-30)|
|Re: is lex useful? Or how about these other tools... daniels@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (1996-07-02)|
|Re: is lex useful? Or how about these other tools... firstname.lastname@example.org (1996-07-03)|
|From:||email@example.com (Mark K. Gardner)|
|Date:||30 Jun 1996 16:34:10 -0400|
|Organization:||University of Illinois at Urbana|
INPACT5 inpact5 (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
: I've been looking at compiler tools for a few weeks now and
: I'd rather like an answer to your question as well. I would
: also like to add a bit to it...
: Which is the better system of compiler tools :
: lex/yacc (flex/bison/byacc/...)
: visual parse++
: Any other reasonable ones that I missed?
I have been using Coco/R recently and have found it to be quite easy to
generate scanner/parsers using it. The scanner and parser specifications
are in the same file, which I find to be a great improvement and the parser
is specified via extended BNF. Coco/R generates a reasonably efficient
scanner and a recursive decent parser. It is quite easy to annotate the
parser spec with arbitrary actions that are performed upon recognition.
There are several versions of Coco/R available depending on your
I am also enclosing a post by Pat Terry which gives you his slant
[The post was number 95-02-102. You can find it in the archives at
http://iecc.com/compilers, or from the mail server at
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.