Articles/books that discuss separating the context-free part of a language from the context-sensitive part?

"Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org>
Fri, 17 May 2013 20:57:38 +0000

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Articles/books that discuss separating the context-free part of a lang costello@mitre.org (Costello, Roger L.) (2013-05-17)
Re: Articles/books that discuss separating the context-free part of a gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2013-05-18)
Re: Articles/books that discuss separating the context-free part of a ademakov@gmail.com (Aleksey Demakov) (2013-05-18)
Re: Articles/books that discuss separating the context-free part of a genew@telus.net (Gene Wirchenko) (2013-05-19)
Re: Articles/books that discuss separating the context-free part of a gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2013-05-20)
Re: Articles/books that discuss separating the context-free part of a anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2013-05-20)
Re: Articles/books that discuss separating the context-free part of a genew@telus.net (Gene Wirchenko) (2013-05-20)
[3 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 20:57:38 +0000
Organization: Compilers Central
Keywords: parse, theory
Posted-Date: 17 May 2013 18:47:35 EDT
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US

I read this fantastic post on the comp.theory list:


http://coding.derkeiler.com/Archive/General/comp.theory/2004-03/0189.html


The poster makes the point that most programming languages define a
context-free core, and then have additional algorithms which run on the parse
tree to filter out constructs that are illegal in the language:


            This separates out the context-free part of the language
            from the context-sensitive part -- which is generally
            regarded as good practice (a kind of modular "programming"
            discipline for language design).


Are there any articles or books that discuss this technique?


[That's been the conventional wisdom at least since I took a compilers
course in the early 1970s. I believe I mentioned it in lex&yacc and
later in flex&bison. It's easier, and it also permits much better
error messages. -John]



Post a followup to this message

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