Re: LR (k) vs. LALR

Sean Case <>
7 Sep 2004 23:51:23 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[3 earlier articles]
Re: LR (k) vs. LALR (Jean-Marc Bourguet) (2004-08-11)
Re: LR (k) vs. LALR (2004-08-15)
Re: LR (k) vs. LALR (Clint Olsen) (2004-08-23)
Re: LR (k) vs. LALR (Jeremy Wright) (2004-08-25)
Re: LR (k) vs. LALR (Sylvain Schmitz) (2004-09-03)
Re: LR (k) vs. LALR (2004-09-03)
Re: LR (k) vs. LALR (Sean Case) (2004-09-07)
Re: LR (k) vs. LALR (Chris F Clark) (2004-09-07)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: Sean Case <>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 7 Sep 2004 23:51:23 -0400
Organization: Marginal
References: 04-08-037 04-08-055 04-08-073 04-08-098 04-08-111 04-08-145 04-09-015
Keywords: parse
Posted-Date: 07 Sep 2004 23:51:23 EDT (Kamal R. Prasad) wrote:

> The author states that he wrote the GLR parser generator solely to
> handle C++ language spec [and someone lapped it up to handle Java].

> What exactly is it about OO languages that an LALR(1) parser cannot
> handle?

It's nothing to do with OO languages; it's to do with the trainwreck
that is C++ syntax. Lots of other OO languages can be parsed with
much less trouble.

Sean Case

Sean Case

Code is an illusion. Only assertions are real.

Post a followup to this message

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