Re: Grammar with precedence rules

Joachim Durchholz <joachim_d@gmx.de>
11 Mar 2002 02:17:17 -0500

          From comp.compilers
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)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Joachim Durchholz <joachim_d@gmx.de>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 11 Mar 2002 02:17:17 -0500
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 02-03-043
Keywords: parse
Posted-Date: 11 Mar 2002 02:17:17 EST

Hans Aberg wrote:
> 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)?


The Dragon book has a set of rules that say when a precedence grammar
is unambiguous (for a quite wide definition of "precedence grammar",
i.e. with few restrictions on the form of the productions). This is
almost certainly not what you want, but it may give you a new angle to
view the problem from.


Regards,
Joachim
--

Post a followup to this message

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