|ANNOUNCE: Tiny, a parser generator for context sensitive grammars email@example.com (Maurice Gittens) (2001-07-23)|
|Re: ANNOUNCE: Tiny, a parser generator for context sensitive gram firstname.lastname@example.org (2001-07-27)|
|Re: ANNOUNCE: Tiny, a parser generator for context sensitive gr email@example.com (Maurice Gittens) (2001-08-02)|
|Re: ANNOUNCE: Tiny, a parser generator for context sensitive grammars firstname.lastname@example.org (Daniel C. Wang) (2001-08-06)|
|Re: ANNOUNCE: Tiny, a parser generator for context sensitive gramma email@example.com (Mike Dimmick) (2001-08-08)|
|From:||"Maurice Gittens" <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||2 Aug 2001 02:33:59 -0400|
|Organization:||XS4ALL Internet BV|
|Posted-Date:||02 Aug 2001 02:33:58 EDT|
> 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
This is an interesting question. LALR(1) grammars have proven to
allow the generation of parsers for many languages used in practice.
Is this because we tailor the languages we use to the possibilities of
parser generators commonly used or is this because LALR(1) grammars
are some how "good" enough for every day needs.
To say the truth, I don't really now.
If we tailor the languages to the possibilities of the LALR(k) parser
generators then I don't think there are many constructs I could give
as an answer to you question.
If however one would have _languages_ which are not LALR(k) then, in
the context of such languages, I would guess it would be possible to
provide an answer to your question.
So, how about providing some "problem constructs" for LALR(k)
grammars and I'll try to come up with solutions based on
dotted grammars :-) .
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.