Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| From: | gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | Fri, 6 May 2022 14:30:36 -0700 (PDT) |
| Organization: | Compilers Central |
| References: | 22-05-003 22-05-011 |
| Injection-Info: | gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="19076"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" |
| Keywords: | lex, design |
| Posted-Date: | 06 May 2022 20:23:41 EDT |
| In-Reply-To: | 22-05-011 |
On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 9:14:54 AM UTC-7, George Neuner wrote:
(snip)
> Not to mention that programming languages which tend to actually be
> used also tend to be [relatively] easily parsed using LL(k).
An important part of a programming language is that people can understand it.
I suspect it isn't hard to design a language that computers can easily
parse, but people can't. Your lexer only needs to be good enough for
actual programming languages.
As with BBQs, that doesn't stop people from trying.
[Take a look at Postscript, which is trivial to tokenize and parse since
it's a stream of tokens in RPN order, but making sense of it
by humans is a challenge. Or, of course, m4. -John]
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.