Re: Theory about DFA's and f?lex start states

vbdis@aol.com (VBDis)
22 Nov 2000 12:10:50 -0500

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[5 earlier articles]
Re: Theory about DFA's and f?lex start states joachim_d@gmx.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2000-11-14)
Re: Theory about DFA's and f?lex start states ucapjab@ucl.ac.uk (Jonathan Barker) (2000-11-14)
Re: Theory about DFA's and f?lex start states frank@gnu.de (2000-11-14)
Re: Theory about DFA's and f?lex start states pcj1@my-deja.com (2000-11-19)
Re: Theory about DFA's and f?lex start states cfc@world.std.com (Chris F Clark) (2000-11-21)
Re: Theory about DFA's and f?lex start states joachim_d@gmx.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2000-11-21)
Re: Theory about DFA's and f?lex start states vbdis@aol.com (2000-11-22)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: vbdis@aol.com (VBDis)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 22 Nov 2000 12:10:50 -0500
Organization: AOL Bertelsmann Online GmbH & Co. KG http://www.germany.aol.com
References: 00-11-134
Keywords: lex, DFA
Posted-Date: 22 Nov 2000 12:10:50 EST

pcj1@my-deja.com schreibt:
>The important thing is that you have multiple "exclusive"
>DFA's (using the word "exclusive" to mean that merging them would
>cause conflicts) and that you are switching between them.


IMO such switching can introduce many problems, since at which point
(in source code) do you want to start after such a switch? How much
look-ahead and other operations are lost during such a switch? And
what when a preprocessor comes in, as another component?


At least I found some problems, simply switching between a HLL and an
ASM lexer/parser for inline assembly code.


DoDi

Post a followup to this message

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