Re: LR (k) vs. LALR

Sean Case <gsc@zip.com.au>
7 Sep 2004 23:51:23 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[3 earlier articles]
Re: LR (k) vs. LALR jm@bourguet.org (Jean-Marc Bourguet) (2004-08-11)
Re: LR (k) vs. LALR kamalp@acm.org (2004-08-15)
Re: LR (k) vs. LALR clint@0lsen.net (Clint Olsen) (2004-08-23)
Re: LR (k) vs. LALR jeremy.wright@microfocus.com (Jeremy Wright) (2004-08-25)
Re: LR (k) vs. LALR schmitz@i3s.unice.fr (Sylvain Schmitz) (2004-09-03)
Re: LR (k) vs. LALR kamalp@acm.org (2004-09-03)
Re: LR (k) vs. LALR gsc@zip.com.au (Sean Case) (2004-09-07)
Re: LR (k) vs. LALR cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2004-09-07)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Sean Case <gsc@zip.com.au>
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

  kamalp@acm.org (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 gsc@zip.com.au


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.