|XPL Analyzer firstname.lastname@example.org (Shoefoot) (2017-06-05)|
|Re: XPL Analyzer email@example.com (Robin Vowels) (2017-06-05)|
|Re: XPL Analyzer firstname.lastname@example.org (George Neuner) (2017-06-05)|
|Re: XPL Analyzer email@example.com (Shoefoot) (2017-06-07)|
|Re: XPL Analyzer firstname.lastname@example.org (mac) (2017-06-08)|
|Re: XPL Analyzer email@example.com (SLK Parser Generator) (2017-06-09)|
|Re: XPL Analyzer firstname.lastname@example.org (George Neuner) (2017-06-09)|
|Re: XPL Analyzer DrDiettrich1@aol.com.dmarc.email (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2017-06-13)|
|From:||"SLK Parser Generator" <email@example.com>|
|Date:||Fri, 09 Jun 2017 08:38:05 -0800|
|Injection-Info:||miucha.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="24216"; mail-complaints-to="firstname.lastname@example.org"|
|Posted-Date:||09 Jun 2017 11:20:41 EDT|
"XCOM and XA were subsequently changed to instead use a variant of Donald
Knuth's LR parser bottom-up method. XCOM's variant is called Simple LR
or SLR. It handles more grammars than MSP but not quite as many grammars
as LALR or full LR(1). The differences from LR(1) are mostly in the table
generator's algorithms, not in the compile-time parser method. XCOM and XA
predate the widespread availability of Unix and its yacc parser generator
tool. XA and yacc have similar purposes."
I would suggest using LR, given the power of today's hardware. SLK
generates LR(k) and it was much easier for me to implement than the
LALR(k) that is also supported.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.