Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| [5 earlier articles] |
| Re: syntax extension, was Why context-free? haberg@math.su.se (2005-11-02) |
| Re: syntax extension, was Why context-free? toby@telegraphics.com.au (toby) (2005-11-04) |
| Re: syntax extension, was Why context-free? henry@spsystems.net (2005-11-26) |
| Re: syntax extension, was Why context-free? haberg@math.su.se (2005-11-27) |
| Re: syntax extension, was Why context-free? mpah@thegreen.co.uk (2005-12-08) |
| Re: syntax extension, was Why context-free? rfigura@erbse.azagtoth.de (Robert Figura) (2005-12-15) |
| Re: syntax extension, was Why context-free? nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (2005-12-15) |
| Re: syntax extension, was Why context-free? mpah@thegreen.co.uk (2005-12-15) |
| From: | nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | 15 Dec 2005 17:52:46 -0500 |
| Organization: | University of Cambridge, England |
| References: | 05-10-053 05-11-122 05-12-017 05-12-037 |
| Keywords: | parse |
| Posted-Date: | 15 Dec 2005 17:52:46 EST |
Robert Figura <rfigura@erbse.azagtoth.de> wrote:
>You cannot make an universal turing machine from a simple recursive
>automaton. But there are reasons to stick to parsers which are
>guaranteed to halt in finite time. Grammar matching has been kept even
>simpler since usually no modification of the grammar is allowed after
>parsing begins.
Remember the original PL/1 language and the original Algol 68 report?
Finite time is not enough - it needs to be bounded by a reasonable
function in the size of a program.
>My desire for clean design has been calling for relief for years and
>it won't stop. My hope is that we might find better ways to bring
>marriages to our language zoo in the future.
I sympathise, but am likely to retire with my desire unsatisfied.
You may be younger, but you may well do the same.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.