Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| Grammar with precedence rules haberg@matematik.su.se (2002-03-09) |
| Re: Grammar with precedence rules joachim_d@gmx.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2002-03-11) |
| Re: Grammar with precedence rules haberg@matematik.su.se (2002-03-17) |
| Re: Grammar with precedence rules mickunas@cs.uiuc.edu (Dennis Mickunas) (2002-03-17) |
| Re: Grammar with precedence rules joachim_d@gmx.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2002-03-19) |
| Re: Grammar with precedence rules haberg@matematik.su.se (2002-03-21) |
| Re: Grammar with precedence rules michaeldyck@shaw.ca (Michael Dyck) (2002-03-31) |
| From: | haberg@matematik.su.se (Hans Aberg) |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | 9 Mar 2002 03:14:02 -0500 |
| Organization: | Mathematics |
| Keywords: | parse, question |
| Posted-Date: | 09 Mar 2002 03:14:02 EST |
One problem with the descriptions of grammars plus precedence rules
(as used like in say Bison) is that they are algorithm specific (i.e.,
one uses the precedences to resolve shift/reduce conflicts).
When dealing with different parsing algorithms, one would like to have
a language specified by a pair (G, P), where G is a traditional
grammar, and P is a suitably defined set of precedence rules. Then
from that, one should be able to define the language L(G, P), without
any dependency on a specific parsing algorithm.
Has this been done (if so, ref's, please)?
Hans Aberg * Email: Hans Aberg <haberg@member.ams.org>
* Home Page: <http://www.matematik.su.se/~haberg/>
* AMS member listing: <http://www.ams.org/cml/>
[Seems to me that you could mechanically translate such a grammar into
normal BNF and then parse from there. -John]
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.