Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| Hand-written parsers? thomas.luzat@gmx.net (Thomas Luzat) (2000-12-23) |
| Re: Hand-written parsers? mike@dimmick.demon.co.uk (Mike Dimmick) (2000-12-24) |
| Re: Hand-written parsers? smoleski@surakware.com (Sebastian Moleski) (2000-12-24) |
| Re: Hand-written parsers? jparis11@home.com (Jean Pariseau) (2000-12-24) |
| Re: Hand-written parsers? LLkParsing@aol.com (2000-12-31) |
| From: | LLkParsing@aol.com |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | 31 Dec 2000 03:00:56 -0500 |
| Organization: | Deja.com |
| References: | 00-12-102 00-12-106 |
| Keywords: | C++, design |
| Posted-Date: | 31 Dec 2000 03:00:56 EST |
> [A counterargument says that if Stroustrup had paid attention to the
> error messages from yacc, maybe the syntax C++ wouldn't be such a mess
> and at least wouldn't be ambiguous. -John]
Interesting perspective. I had always assumed arrogance, when simple
carelessness could explain the inclusion of the function-style cast in
the language. The most disturbing result of this is that it seems to
have caused a trend towards the use of syntactic predicates and GLR
parsing. These tend to mask the underlying inefficiency of the
non-deterministic algorithms.
A clear advantage of using a parser generator is that it does the
grammar analysis first before trying to write the parser. Recursive
descent developers might benefit by using this approach.
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.