From: joel de guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-05-24 22:00:43
From: "David Abrahams":
> From: "Vladimir Prus":
> > Theoretical study is not likely do give us much. Backtraing parser have
> > exponetial complexity in worst case, and "high priests" would find
> > impossible.
> FWIW, I know that at least one well-respected C++ compilers uses recursive
> descent with backtracking.
An email snippet:
"Bjarne Stroustrup is on record as saying that he regrets having used yacc
generate the parser in CFront (AT&T's C++ compiler), not because of any
difference in parsing speed, but because of the extreme difficulty of
providing meaningful syntax errors with yacc, compared to using RD."
"Walter Bright used RD in Zortech C++, and it's no slouch in compile speed."
-- Bruce Hoult
Did a quick search with
google, can't find... but I'm sure I read that somewhere. (D&E of C++?).
"Examples of designs that meet most of the criteria for "goodness" (easy to
understand, flexible, efficient) are a recursive descent parser, which is
traditional procedural code. Another example is the STL, which is a generic
library of containers and algorithms depending crucially on both traditional
procedural code and on parametric polymorphism. "
Joel de Guzman
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk