| Related articles |
|---|
| Postscript Parser withers@cs.man.ac.uk (1997-10-17) |
| Re: Postscript Parser quite@dial.pipex.com (1997-10-19) |
| Parsing stack-based languages nnylfv@ny.ubs.com (Olivier Lefevre) (1997-10-26) |
| Re: Parsing stack-based languages anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (1997-10-29) |
| From: | Olivier Lefevre <nnylfv@ny.ubs.com> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | 26 Oct 1997 22:11:13 -0500 |
| Organization: | UBS Securities Inc., TFRT Dept. |
| References: | 97-10-091 97-10-096 |
| Keywords: | parse, comment |
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)?
Regards,
-- O.L.
[The parser does very little, and most of the semantics are determined
dynamically as the program runs. -John]
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.