Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| [6 earlier articles] |
| Re: Advice on Writing a Parser Generator scherzin@fmi.uni-passau.de (2003-08-15) |
| Re: Advice on Writing a Parser Generator joachim.durchholz@web.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2003-08-20) |
| Re: Advice on Writing a Parser Generator cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2003-08-23) |
| Re: Advice on Writing a Parser Generator lex@cc.gatech.edu (Lex Spoon) (2003-08-23) |
| Re: Advice on Writing a Parser Generator jhayes2@oswego.edu (2003-08-23) |
| Re: Advice on Writing a Parser Generator usenet0@skora.net (Thomas Skora) (2003-09-04) |
| Re: Advice on Writing a Parser Generator robert.thorpe@antenova.com (Rob Thorpe) (2003-09-04) |
| From: | Rob Thorpe <robert.thorpe@antenova.com> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | 4 Sep 2003 22:36:42 -0400 |
| Organization: | Compilers Central |
| Keywords: | parse, tools |
| Posted-Date: | 04 Sep 2003 22:36:42 EDT |
> Mykola Rabchevskiy <chief@ockhamstyle.com> wrote
>
> SableCC is really good, but it is not a true LALR Parser Generator, so
> you have to deal with shift reduce conflicts in the grammar, and it is
> underdocumented, but I like it
SableCC is a true LALR(1) parser generator. Like all other LALR parser
generators you have to deal with shift reduce conflicts. That is a
basic limitation of LALR parsers, though the decison can be often made
on precedence. Though I don't know how SableCC deals with precedence.
Just clearing up terms.
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.