Re: Recursive Descent Parser

anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl)
27 Feb 2000 02:38:33 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[4 earlier articles]
Re: Recursive Descent Parser rhyde@shoe-size.com (Randall Hyde) (2000-02-12)
Re: Recursive Descent Parser mklarson@gte.net (Michael Larson) (2000-02-22)
Re: Recursive Descent Parser paulyg@clara.net (2000-02-22)
Re: Recursive Descent Parser world!cfc@uunet.uu.net (Chris F Clark) (2000-02-22)
Re: Recursive Descent Parser fjscipio@rochester.rr.com (Fred J. Scipione) (2000-02-23)
Re: Recursive Descent Parser adrian@dcs.rhbnc.ac.uk (2000-02-27)
Re: Recursive Descent Parser anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2000-02-27)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (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

  paulyg@clara.net (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
>go.


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
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at Most things have to be believed to be seen
http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html


Post a followup to this message

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