Re: Recursive Descent Parser (Anton Ertl)
27 Feb 2000 02:38:33 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[4 earlier articles]
Re: Recursive Descent Parser (Randall Hyde) (2000-02-12)
Re: Recursive Descent Parser (Michael Larson) (2000-02-22)
Re: Recursive Descent Parser (2000-02-22)
Re: Recursive Descent Parser world! (Chris F Clark) (2000-02-22)
Re: Recursive Descent Parser (Fred J. Scipione) (2000-02-23)
Re: Recursive Descent Parser (2000-02-27)
Re: Recursive Descent Parser (2000-02-27)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: (Anton Ertl)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 27 Feb 2000 02:38:33 -0500
Organization: Institut fuer Computersprachen, Technische Universitaet Wien
References: 00-01-027 00-01-032 00-02-034 00-02-058 00-02-111 00-02-115
Keywords: parse (Paul Groves) writes:
>And I agree with Stroustrup (which is nice :-) ), if you're writing a
>langauge as an exeriment - hand writing the parser is the only way to

The way I understand what Stroustroup wrote, is: with his constraints
(C compatibility etc.), using yacc was a bad choice.

If you are writing a language as an experiment, and are willing to fit
the syntax to the tools you use, using a parser generator is a good
idea; in this setting it's even more useful than with a given syntax.
Why? With a hand-written parser, every change in the language can
result in changes affecting significant parts of the parser (e.g.,
changes in the first-sets). The parser generator takes care of these
issues for you.

- anton
M. Anton Ertl Some things have to be seen to be believed Most things have to be believed to be seen

Post a followup to this message

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