Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| Pondering the future of lexical analysis clint@0lsen.net (Clint Olsen) (2002-10-18) |
| Re: Pondering the future of lexical analysis jmcenerney@austin.rr.com (John McEnerney) (2002-10-20) |
| Re: Pondering the future of lexical analysis snicol@apk.net (Scott Nicol) (2002-10-20) |
| Re: Pondering the future of lexical analysis whopkins@alpha2.csd.uwm.edu (Mark) (2002-10-20) |
| Re: Pondering the future of lexical analysis arnold@skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins) (2002-10-20) |
| From: | "Mark" <whopkins@alpha2.csd.uwm.edu> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | 20 Oct 2002 22:53:17 -0400 |
| Organization: | University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee, Computing Services Division |
| References: | 02-10-068 |
| Keywords: | lex |
| Posted-Date: | 20 Oct 2002 22:53:16 EDT |
"Clint Olsen" <clint@0lsen.net> writes:
>I've been reading the Dragon Book lately about lexing, and after some
>discussion with folks on the Flex team, the big hurdle in the future
>will be the support of unicode - primarily due to the size of the
>transition tables.
A more efficient lex compilation would map state diagrams directly
onto control flow diagrams so that every state is a goto label, every
transition a goto, and if-then[-else]'s, loops, direct fall-through
and sequencing are all synthesized out of the diagram. A computer
program already is a transition table, so there's no need to build one
in it on top of it.
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.