|ANNOUNCE: Tiny, a parser generator for context sensitive grammars firstname.lastname@example.org (Maurice Gittens) (2001-07-23)|
|Re: ANNOUNCE: Tiny, a parser generator for context sensitive gram email@example.com (2001-07-27)|
|Re: ANNOUNCE: Tiny, a parser generator for context sensitive grammars firstname.lastname@example.org (2001-07-30)|
|Re: ANNOUNCE: Tiny, a parser generator for context sensitive grammars email@example.com (Joachim Durchholz) (2001-07-30)|
|From:||"Joachim Durchholz" <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||30 Jul 2001 01:24:35 -0400|
|Posted-Date:||30 Jul 2001 01:24:34 EDT|
Eric O'Dell <email@example.com> wrote:
> I dusted off my very rusty set theory and took a look at your paper,
> which is indeed interesting. However, I was wondering if you could
> give some examples of the sorts of constructs that are possible with
> dotted grammars which aren't possible (or are exceedingly difficult)
> in ordinary LALR grammars?
My theory says that context-sensitive grammars can handle non-local
stuff usually stored as tree decoration, such as type information
(i.e. type errors become syntax errors with the right grammar).
A parser generator for context-sensitive grammars is an interesting
thing, though I'm not sure how well it will work in practice. (Things
to consider: "obviousness" of conflicts, speed of parser generator and
parser, error diagnostics, how straightforward is it to encode type
information and such in a context-sensitive grammer, and probably a
whole lot more things.)
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.