Related articles |
---|
[5 earlier articles] |
Re: what scanner scheme is efficient? jsgray@acm.org (Jan Gray) (1996-10-20) |
Re: what scanner scheme is efficient? clark@quarry.zk3.dec.com (1996-10-24) |
Re: what scanner scheme is efficient? james@wgold.demon.co.uk (James Mansion) (1996-10-24) |
Re: what scanner scheme is efficient? jlilley@empathy.com (1996-10-30) |
Re: what scanner scheme is efficient? vern@daffy.ee.lbl.gov (1996-11-12) |
Re: what scanner scheme is efficient? jlilley@empathy.com (1996-11-15) |
Re: what scanner scheme is efficient? adrian@dcs.rhbnc.ac.uk (1996-11-19) |
Re: what scanner scheme is efficient? vern@daffy.ee.lbl.gov (1996-11-21) |
Re: what scanner scheme is efficient? adrian@dcs.rhbnc.ac.uk (1996-11-24) |
Re: what scanner scheme is efficient? jlilley@empathy.com (1996-12-01) |
From: | adrian@dcs.rhbnc.ac.uk (A Johnstone) |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
Date: | 19 Nov 1996 23:31:53 -0500 |
Organization: | Royal Holloway, University of London |
References: | 96-10-076 96-10-081 96-10-149 96-11-079 96-11-103 |
Keywords: | lex |
John Lilley (jlilley@empathy.com) wrote:
: What sample have you examined to arrive at the conslusion that *most*
: scanners require backing-up? The languages that I know of (C, C++,
: Pascal) do not require any backtracking to support their keyword sets.
But it's not just keywords. Consider the two Pascal fragments:
1.4
1..4
The first tokenises as REAL_LITERAL(1.4) whereas the second goes to
INTEGER_LITERAL(1) KEYWORD(..) INTEGER_LITERAL(4). After lexing 1. if
you then see another period you have to back up.
Adrian (who's been burnt - see RDP 1.3)
--
Dr Adrian Johnstone, Dean of the Science Faculty, Dept of Computer Science,
Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, Surrey, TW20 0EX, England.
Email: adrian@dcs.rhbnc.ac.uk Tel: +44 (0)1784 443425 Fax: +44 (0)1784 443420
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.