Re: parser generator terminology

Chris F Clark wrote:


>> I believe that with static analysis, such a grammar could always be
>> automatically transformed to a grammar without parameterized rules.
>
> Yes, it can be. That's farther down my list of things for Yacc++,
> mostly because it can help people write harder to maintain grammars.


I'd think the opposite is true. That is, I believe grammars with
parameterized rules can be more maintainable.


> If you don't let the rules act like "captures", it gives you no power
> that isn't already in an LR grammar.


It's not about power. It's about convenience. It's about avoiding code
duplication (or grammar duplication, as the case may be).


>> * A way to output a human-readable grammar with documentation for
>> grammar rules automatically extracted from the source-code.
>
> Something like Doygen fro a grammar? Care to elaborate?


That's what I mean, yes. I'm designing a programming language, and I
have to document the grammar as well as implement it. And I don't like
duplication of information. Admittedly I haven't thought this through
in great detail, but it seems to me that without this feature, I'd
have to make any grammar change in at least two places.


>> Feel free to use or ignore these as you wish.
>
> Sadly, it isn't lack of ideas keeping new things from going into
> Yacc++, but lack of time/energy after my day job.
>
> If you get motivated to implement some of this and want to yuse Yacc++
> as a base, contact me and we can work something out.


I understand. But as I said, I have a list of personal projects I'd
like to work on, and the parser generator is far down the list.


--
Michiel Helvensteijn

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