From: John Max Skaller (skaller_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-05-31 17:24:31
Douglas Gregor wrote:
> What I'm proposing is that we use on-the-fly parser generation to make the
> compiler writer's job easier.
Which might also allow user extensions to the grammar,
something I've only dreamed of. This is probably viable for
an RD parser. It probably isn't for a bottom up parser,
unless you use some fancy scheme which caches the parse
tables on disk.
FYI: for Felix, which uses Lex and Yacc like tools,
the huge cost is building the lexer (takes ages and ages),
then the parser (takes a while) and running the LP tool
(takes a while), whilst compiling the whole of the rest
of the code takes about the same time as building the parser.
Because I want to support 'optional' constructions,
I use a hack: a list of keywords which identifiers are
checked against while lexing. [One construction I want to be
optional is 'goto']
-- John (Max) Skaller, mailto:skaller_at_[hidden] 10/1 Toxteth Rd Glebe NSW 2037 Australia voice: 61-2-9660-0850 checkout Vyper http://Vyper.sourceforge.net download Interscript http://Interscript.sourceforge.net
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk