Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| Code generation from AST lssilva@gmail.com (Lucas S. Silva) (2007-11-10) |
| DFA Lexer Generation From BNF pbm@oct.net (Paul B Mann) (2007-11-10) |
| Re: DFA Lexer Generation From BNF cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2007-11-11) |
| Re: DFA Lexer Generation From BNF gneuner2/@/comcast.net (George Neuner) (2007-11-12) |
| Re: DFA Lexer Generation From BNF pbm@oct.net (Paul B Mann) (2007-11-16) |
| Re: DFA Lexer Generation From BNF bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com (Robert A Duff) (2007-11-16) |
| Re: DFA Lexer Generation From BNF idbaxter@semdesigns.com (2007-11-17) |
| From: | Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | Fri, 16 Nov 2007 20:28:41 -0500 |
| Organization: | The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA |
| References: | 07-11-033 07-11-038 |
| Keywords: | parse, lex |
| Posted-Date: | 16 Nov 2007 20:38:17 EST |
"Paul B Mann" <pbm@oct.net> writes:
> Does anyone know of a lexer generator whose input is a BNF grammar
> instead of regular expressions ?
>
> Paul Mann
>
> [DFA's aren't adequate to recognize BNF, which is why parser
> generators use a DFA and a stack or other more powerful machines. I
> suppose you could limit it to a BNF subset equivalent to regexps, but
> what would be the point? -John]
The point (of using BNF notation for a lexer) I think would be to use a
uniform notation for both lexer and parser. Seems reasonable, since the
one is a subset of the other. Some parser tools do this..
- Bob
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.