Re: Syntax diagram driven parser

On 25 Sep 2000, in comp.compilers (Eric O'Dell) wrote:


>>Would anyone use it, even if it worked well?
>
>Maybe. I'd sure like to see it. I'm curious to know how you'd attach
>actions to productions.


All semantic actions are saved until after the parsing is done.
Once the parse tree is created, I pass it to additional routines,
specific to the language involved, that process it further.


>My understanding of machine-parsable grammars -- and I'm sure there
>are plenty of people here with broader understandings -- is that the
>limits of grammars which can be parsed in linear time are pretty well
>known and firmly circumscribed by solid proofs. That being said, I
>don't think anyone would deny the possibility of revolutionary new
>methods of building compilers, though opinions on the likelihood of
>such methods are likely to vary widely. I'm of the mind that trying
>certainly doesn't hurt, and you might find something new.


I truly believe I am finding new ways to build parsers, maybe they'll
turn out to be better ways. Unfortunately, most of the feedback to me
equates to "By golly, these old tools were good enough for my pappy,
they're good enough for me!". Hopefully, as I learn to discuss the
standard topics a little more fluently, I'll be taken more seriously.


>Anyway, it sounds like an interesting tool, and I'd certainly like to
>see it.


When time permits, I'll set up a web site describing what I'm doing in
more detail.


- Brian

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