|Postscript Parser email@example.com (1997-10-17)|
|Re: Postscript Parser firstname.lastname@example.org (1997-10-19)|
|Parsing stack-based languages email@example.com (Olivier Lefevre) (1997-10-26)|
|Re: Parsing stack-based languages firstname.lastname@example.org (1997-10-29)|
|From:||Olivier Lefevre <email@example.com>|
|Date:||26 Oct 1997 22:11:13 -0500|
|Organization:||UBS Securities Inc., TFRT Dept.|
Aandi Inston wrote:
> PostScript isn't a language that can be parsed by a grammar. It's a
> full programming language, but it's stack based (no structure) and
> interpreted so the running program can change the meaning.
That is interesting. What, then, is the theory (if any) underlying
the parsers of such languages (Forth being another)?
[The parser does very little, and most of the semantics are determined
dynamically as the program runs. -John]
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.