Re: Alternatives to Regexps

jamz@cdsnet.net
10 Jul 1998 20:53:38 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Alternatives to Regexps john@dwaf-hri.pwv.gov.za (John Carter) (1998-07-08)
Re: Alternatives to Regexps ak@muc.de (1998-07-10)
Re: Alternatives to Regexps torbenm@diku.dk (Torben Mogensen) (1998-07-10)
Re: Alternatives to Regexps jamz@cdsnet.net (1998-07-10)
Re: Alternatives to Regexps d.rourke@arpc.com (Daniel Rourke) (1998-07-10)
Re: Alternatives to Regexps bear@sonic.net (Ray Dillinger) (1998-07-10)
Re: Alternatives to Regexps bpr@best.com (Brian Rogoff) (1998-07-10)
Re: Alternatives to Regexps mav@naxos.esat.kuleuven.ac.be (Maurizio Vitale) (1998-07-10)
Re: Alternatives to Regexps lord@emf.emf.net (1998-07-11)
Re: Alternatives to Regexps bromage@cs.mu.OZ.AU (1998-07-11)
[3 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
From: jamz@cdsnet.net
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 10 Jul 1998 20:53:38 -0400
Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
References: 98-07-057
Keywords: DFA

> So what I'm seeking are pointers to a far more readable, elegant and
> consistent pragmatic pattern recognition language.
>


The rewrite of ANTLR into version 2 opted to use LL lexers instead of
regular expressions. I find them very easy to read although odd
because of left factoring which has to take place. Check out
www.antlr.org. Recently there has been discussion on the
antlr-interest mailing list on how to improve this approach to
specifying lexers.


Monty
--

Post a followup to this message

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