Re: terminological problem (EBNF & regular expressions)

"Paul Mann" <paul@parsetec.com>
19 Oct 2005 02:39:49 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Re: terminological problem (EBNF & regular expressions) paul@parsetec.com (Paul Mann) (2005-10-14)
Re: terminological problem (EBNF & regular expressions) Meyer-Eltz@t-online.de (Detlef Meyer-Eltz) (2005-10-15)
Re: terminological problem (EBNF & regular expressions) paul@parsetec.com (Paul Mann) (2005-10-17)
Re: terminological problem (EBNF & regular expressions) paul@parsetec.com (Paul Mann) (2005-10-19)
Re: terminological problem (EBNF & regular expressions) Meyer-Eltz@t-online.de (Detlef Meyer-Eltz) (2005-10-19)
Re: terminological problem (EBNF & regular expressions) paul@parsetec.com (Paul Mann) (2005-10-20)
Re: terminological problem (EBNF & regular expressions) Meyer-Eltz@t-online.de (Detlef Meyer-Eltz) (2005-10-23)
Re: terminological problem (EBNF & regular expressions) paul@parsetec.com (Paul Mann) (2005-10-26)
Re: terminological problem (EBNF & regular expressions) RLake@oxfam.org.uk (2005-10-26)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: "Paul Mann" <paul@parsetec.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 19 Oct 2005 02:39:49 -0400
Organization: Compilers Central
Keywords: syntax

> [The reason you might want to avoid recursive rules is so your
> expression can be encoded as a state machine rather than a state
> machine plus a stack. -John]


Yes, that is true, but with an optimization, (i.e. removing
chain-reductions in the parser tables), I can remove the need for a
stack, in most rules. The stack does come in handy for some rules
though, such as nested comments, and the speed of the lexers hardly
diminishes at all.


Paul Mann
http://parsetec.com


Post a followup to this message

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