Re: Van Wijngaarden grammars

Michael Parkes <mparks@oz.net>
27 Feb 1996 16:39:43 -0500

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[3 earlier articles]
Re: Van Wijngaarden grammars tjj@thumper.bellcore.com (1991-07-29)
Re: Van Wijngaarden grammars hugh@cs.kun.nl (1991-08-02)
Van Wijngaarden grammars bevan@computer-science.manchester.ac.uk (Stephen J Bevan) (1991-08-02)
Re: Van Wijngaarden grammars chl@cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey) (1991-08-07)
Van Wijngaarden grammars fanf2@thor.cam.ac.uk (1996-02-24)
Re: Van Wijngaarden grammars solution@gate.net (1996-02-26)
Re: Van Wijngaarden grammars mparks@oz.net (Michael Parkes) (1996-02-27)
Re: Van Wijngaarden grammars dave@occl-cam.demon.co.uk (Dave Lloyd) (1996-02-27)
Van Wijngaarden grammars dave@occl-cam.demon.co.uk (Dave Lloyd) (1996-02-27)
Re: Van Wijngaarden grammars gvcormac@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Gordon V. Cormack) (1996-03-01)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Michael Parkes <mparks@oz.net>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 27 Feb 1996 16:39:43 -0500
Organization: Sense Networking Seattle (www.oz.net)
References: 96-02-297
Keywords: parse

fanf2@thor.cam.ac.uk (Tony Finch) wrote:
>Have any languages other than Algol68 used van Wijngaarden grammars
>for their definition?
>
>Has anyone written a compiler generator that uses van Wijngaarden
>grammars to describe the language to be compiled?


Question 1: I am not aware of any.


Question 2: Yes - I know of at least one but the performance was
reported to be very slow. Most reserach seems to have focused on
Attribute Grammars as they offer a similar (but reduced) level of
descriptive power but are generally considered to be more usable.


Regards,


Mike
--

Post a followup to this message

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