Related articles |
---|
[19 earlier articles] |
Re: Why LL(1) Parsers do not support left recursion? ajonospam@andrew.cmu.edu (Arthur J. O'Dwyer) (2006-07-25) |
Re: Why LL(1) Parsers do not support left recursion? wyrmwif@tsoft.org (SM Ryan) (2006-07-28) |
Re: Why LL(1) Parsers do not support left recursion? cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2006-07-28) |
Re: Why LL(1) Parsers do not support left recursion? cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2006-07-28) |
Re: Why LL(1) Parsers do not support left recursion? cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2006-07-28) |
Re: Why LL(1) Parsers do not support left recursion? find@my.address.elsewhere (Matthias Blume) (2006-07-28) |
Re: Why LL(1) Parsers do not support left recursion? DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2006-07-28) |
Re: Why LL(1) Parsers do not support left recursion? DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2006-07-28) |
Re: Why LL(1) Parsers do not support left recursion? DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2006-07-28) |
Re: Why LL(1) Parsers do not support left recursion? wyrmwif@tsoft.org (SM Ryan) (2006-07-29) |
Re: Why LL(1) Parsers do not support left recursion? ajo@andrew.cmu.edu (Arthur J. O'Dwyer) (2006-07-29) |
Re: Why LL(1) Parsers do not support left recursion? DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2006-07-29) |
Re: Why LL(1) Parsers do not support left recursion? parsersinc@earthlink.net (SLK Parsers) (2006-07-31) |
[4 later articles] |
From: | Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@aol.com> |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
Date: | 28 Jul 2006 18:51:40 -0400 |
Organization: | Compilers Central |
References: | 06-07-059 06-07-065 06-07-071 06-07-077 |
Keywords: | parse |
Posted-Date: | 28 Jul 2006 18:51:40 EDT |
Dmitry A. Kazakov schrieb:
> Do you mean that association should be handled after parsing?
If there exist no such restrictions, many things can be done after
parsing. All optimizations, which a compiler for a certain language is
allowed to apply, obviously must be made after parsing. Such
transformations must respect the semantics of the language, but not
their syntax, which has gone away after parsing.
[...]
> But this is also "built in grammar" to me.
When a strict formal description is given for a language, e.g. in form
of a grammar, these details of course must be reflected in any grammar
for that language. Otherwise a grammar only must conform to the informal
description of the language.
DoDi
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.