Re: Do we need parsers?

dgay@barnowl.CS.Berkeley.EDU (David Gay)
4 Jun 1997 22:46:41 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[3 earlier articles]
Re: Do we need parsers? monnier+/news/comp/compilers@tequila.cs.yale.edu (Stefan Monnier) (1997-05-17)
Re: Do we need parsers? monnier+/news/comp/compilers@tequila.cs.yale.edu (Stefan Monnier) (1997-05-17)
Re: Do we need parsers? thetick@scruz.net (Scott Stanchfield) (1997-05-19)
Re: Do we need parsers? David.Monniaux@ens-lyon.fr (1997-05-22)
Re: Do we need parsers? john@dwaf-hri.pwv.gov.za (John Carter) (1997-05-22)
Re: Do we need parsers? nkramer@jprc.com (Nick Kramer) (1997-05-30)
Re: Do we need parsers? dgay@barnowl.CS.Berkeley.EDU (1997-06-04)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: dgay@barnowl.CS.Berkeley.EDU (David Gay)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 4 Jun 1997 22:46:41 -0400
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
References: 97-05-158 97-05-323
Keywords: parse, design

Nick Kramer <nkramer@jprc.com> writes:
      I've heard of two general approaches to this problem. One is to write
      a hybrid structure/text editor. Above some granularity, usually
      statements or expressions, you use tree operations. Below that
      granularity, the editor acts like a normal text editor. The other
      approach is to give the user what looks like a normal text editor, but
      then re-parse the program with every keystroke (using fancy
      incremental lexing and parsing algorithms to make this computationally
      feasible).


      The Gwydion Project has been prototyping a variation on the first
      approach.


For an example of the second approach, check out the 'Ensemble'
project (http://HTTP.CS.Berkeley.EDU/Research/Projects/ensemble/) at
Berkeley - I'm not really up on the details, but it does incremental
lexing and parsing for just these reasons.


--
David Gay - Yet Another Starving Grad Student
dgay@cs.berkeley.edu


--


Post a followup to this message

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