Re: bison and/or antlr ?

George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net>
Mon, 09 Jul 2007 04:05:15 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
bison and/or antlr ? somedeveloper@gmail.com (SomeDeveloper) (2007-06-30)
Re: bison and/or antlr ? gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2007-06-30)
Re: bison and/or antlr ? ron@news1.news.xs4all.nl (Ron AF Greve) (2007-07-01)
Re: bison and/or antlr ? cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2007-07-02)
Re: bison and/or antlr ? tom@infoether.com (Tom Copeland) (2007-07-03)
Re: bison and/or antlr ? gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2007-07-04)
Re: bison and/or antlr ? cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2007-07-07)
Re: bison and/or antlr ? gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2007-07-09)
Re: bison and/or antlr ? cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2007-07-13)
Re: bison and/or antlr ? gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2007-07-16)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 04:05:15 -0400
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 07-06-071 07-07-008 07-07-013 07-07-031
Keywords: tools

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 16:09:27 -0400, Chris F Clark
<cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:


> ... The main place where LL parsing
> can fall down is in expressions. I find the rules that create
> precedence hierarchies to make parsing more complex and not
> simpler.


In fairness, I find crafting precedence hierarchies to be equally
complex in LR. In either case the resulting grammar always turns
uglier than I think it should ideally be.


Must be leftover S-expression envy.




> Predicated (and boolean) grammars are [after SLR or LALR
> parsing with precedence]. If you need this facility, one
> should carefully ask why and whether the resulting language
> is actually well-defined.


Just to be sure, you are referring to _semantic_ predicates? I have
never had a need for them that couldn't be served by parameterized
rules (which I consider a much cleaner solution). I do find
_syntactic_ predicates to be indispensable, however.




>Does that satisfy your curiosity?


In spades!
George


Post a followup to this message

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