Re: Yacc poll summary (long)

Pedz Thing <sun!texsun!pollux!bobkat!pedz@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Mon, 14 Sep 87 11:00:33 cdt

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Yacc poll summary (long) harvard!ames!ausmelb!ejp (1987-09-08)
Re: Yacc poll summary (long) sun!texsun!pollux!bobkat!pedz@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Pedz Thing) (1987-09-14)
Re: Yacc poll summary (long) harvard!!ejp (1987-09-21)
| List of all articles for this month |

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 87 11:00:33 cdt
From: Pedz Thing <sun!texsun!pollux!bobkat!pedz@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
In-Reply-To: <707@ima.ISC.COM>
Organization: Digital Lynx, Inc; Dallas, TX

I was mis-quoted in the Yacc poll and would like to clarify. In the

a) statement : IF ( blah ) statement | IF ( blah ) stateement ELSE statement
b) statement : IF ( blah ) thing
      thing : statement | statement ELSE statement

version a does NOT produce a conflict while version b DOES. (This
assumes that ELSE has been declared as the lowest precedence operator
and has left associtivity.) This is opposite of that the article said.
This indicates that the construct can be resolved intelegently if the
conflict from version b is looked upon more as a macro substitution
rather than a significant production. I do not know why this does not
happen in the first place since all of the information about the
precedence, etc is carried along. In terms of pratical problems,
version b is often desirable to reduce code size and the amount of
repeated code.
Perry Smith a.k.a. (Pedz Thing)
pedz@bobkat or {ti-csl,infotel}!pollux!bobkat!pedz

Post a followup to this message

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