Related articles |
---|
Parser ambiguity m.helvensteijn@gmail.com (2009-03-15) |
Re: Parser ambiguity cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2009-03-15) |
Re: Parser ambiguity max@gustavus.edu (Max Hailperin) (2009-03-15) |
Re: Parser ambiguity m.helvensteijn@gmail.com (2009-03-16) |
Re: Parser ambiguity m.helvensteijn@gmail.com (2009-03-16) |
From: | m.helvensteijn@gmail.com |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
Date: | Mon, 16 Mar 2009 05:53:35 -0700 (PDT) |
Organization: | Compilers Central |
References: | 09-03-066 09-03-072 |
Keywords: | parse |
Posted-Date: | 17 Mar 2009 07:09:03 EDT |
On Mar 16, 1:34 am, Max Hailperin <m...@gustavus.edu> wrote:
> How about ...
I'm now using a similar solution. The drawback of yours is that I'd
need another detail struct-type to transport the tail-data. On the
other hand, it does have less duplication than mine.
Perhaps I can use precedence declarations instead. I just learned how
from John. Apparently they can be used to solve arbitrary shift/reduce
conflicts. It might be the best of both worlds.
Thanks,
--
Michiel Helvensteijn
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.