Re: Parsing implicit operators with recursive descent?

Barry Kelly <barry.j.kelly@gmail.com>
Thu, 12 Feb 2009 20:22:57 +0000

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Parsing implicit operators with recursive descent? johann@myrkraverk.com (Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson) (2009-02-06)
Re: Parsing implicit operators with recursive descent? mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de (Dmitry A. Kazakov) (2009-02-07)
Re: Parsing implicit operators with recursive descent? armelasselin@hotmail.com (Armel) (2009-02-07)
Re: Parsing implicit operators with recursive descent? torbenm@pc-003.diku.dk (2009-02-09)
Re: Parsing implicit operators with recursive descent? barry.j.kelly@gmail.com (Barry Kelly) (2009-02-12)
Re: Parsing implicit operators with recursive descent? johann@myrkraverk.com (Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson) (2010-01-30)
Re: Parsing implicit operators with recursive descent? kkylheku@gmail.com (Kaz Kylheku) (2010-02-01)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Barry Kelly <barry.j.kelly@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 20:22:57 +0000
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 09-02-013
Keywords: parse, LL(1)
Posted-Date: 14 Feb 2009 05:06:39 EST

Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:


> Is it possible to parse implicit operators, like the regular
> expression concatenation operator, with a recursive descent parser?


> That is, to be explicit, is it possible to make a recursive descent
> parser that produces (*) the following parse tree on this input "aab":
>
> @
> / \
> @ b
> / \
> a a


It's completely trivial for hand-written recursive descent. Here's
pseudocode:


parseConcat:
    result = parseElement()
    while notEof() do
        result = makeConcat(result, parseElement())
    return result


.... assuming parseElement() handles items in the concatenation at the
right level of precedence. The loop is useful to avoid redundant
recursion in long sequences; also, using an explicit vector or similar,
rather than a parse tree, might be wise considering a pathologically
deep tree. And of course, the exit condition of the loop would need to
be changed for things like parentheses used for precedence (i.e. check
for closing parenthesis), but this should give you a hint as to the
right direction.


-- Barry


--
http://barrkel.blogspot.com/



Post a followup to this message

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