Re: Precedence based parsing

Joachim Durchholz <joachim.durchholz@web.de>
27 Dec 2003 14:12:13 -0500

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[3 earlier articles]
Re: Precedence based parsing haberg@matematik.su.se (2003-12-08)
Re: Precedence based parsing freitag@alancoxonachip.com (Andi Kleen) (2003-12-08)
Re: Precedence based parsing toby@telegraphics.com.au (2003-12-13)
Re: Precedence based parsing robert.thorpe@antenova.com (Rob Thorpe) (2003-12-13)
Re: Precedence based parsing clint@0lsen.net (Clint Olsen) (2003-12-20)
Re: Precedence based parsing sjmeyer@www.tdl.com (Steve Meyer) (2003-12-23)
Re: Precedence based parsing joachim.durchholz@web.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2003-12-27)
Re: Precedence based parsing haberg@matematik.su.se (2003-12-27)
Re: Precedence based parsing derkgwen@HotPOP.com (Derk Gwen) (2004-01-02)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Joachim Durchholz <joachim.durchholz@web.de>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 27 Dec 2003 14:12:13 -0500
Organization: Oberberg Online Infosysteme
References: 03-12-035 03-12-056 03-12-097 03-12-113 03-12-130
Keywords: parse, practice
Posted-Date: 27 Dec 2003 14:12:13 EST

Steve Meyer wrote:


> In a more general sense, I have never understood why people insist
> on using weak push down autamata (PDA) machine parsing tables when
> programming languages provide the full power of Turing Machines.


Because it's notoriously hard to check that grammars encoded as a
program are describing the language they are intended to describe.


Also, PDA grammars can be transformed and subjected to various
interesting algorithms, while no such algorithms exist for
grammars-expressed-as-programs.


Regards,
Jo

Post a followup to this message

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