Re: regular expression operators in CF grammars

"SLK Parsers" <parsersinc@yahoo.com>
28 Jun 2002 18:31:17 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[3 earlier articles]
Re: regular expression operators in CF grammars neelk@alum.mit.edu (Neelakantan Krishnaswami) (2002-06-14)
Re: regular expression operators in CF grammars rboland@unb.ca (Ralph Boland) (2002-06-17)
Re: regular expression operators in CF grammars cfc@world.std.com (Chris F Clark) (2002-06-17)
Re: regular expression operators in CF grammars kgw-news@stiscan.com (2002-06-20)
Re: regular expression operators in CF grammars kgw-news@stiscan.com (2002-06-28)
Re: regular expression operators in CF grammars parsersinc@yahoo.com (SLK Parsers) (2002-06-28)
Re: regular expression operators in CF grammars parsersinc@yahoo.com (SLK Parsers) (2002-06-28)
Re: regular expression operators in CF grammars soenke.kannapinn@wincor-nixdorf.com (=?Windows-1252?Q?S=F6nke_Kannapinn?=) (2002-06-28)
Re: regular expression operators in CF grammars cfc@world.std.com (Chris F Clark) (2002-07-02)
Re: regular expression operators in CF grammars cfc@world.std.com (Chris F Clark) (2002-07-02)
Re: regular expression operators in CF grammars joachim_d@gmx.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2002-07-02)
Re: regular expression operators in CF grammars soenke.kannapinn@wincor-nixdorf.com (=?Windows-1252?Q?S=F6nke_Kannapinn?=) (2002-07-04)
Re: regular expression operators in CF grammars parsersinc@yahoo.com (SLK Parsers) (2002-07-04)
[9 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |

From: "SLK Parsers" <parsersinc@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 28 Jun 2002 18:31:17 -0400
Organization: Parsers Inc.
References: 02-05-142 02-05-151 02-06-024 02-06-056
Keywords: parse, design
Posted-Date: 28 Jun 2002 18:31:16 EDT

> While this is potentially a true statement, if you think about it, it
> discourages all improvement, since any improvement runs the risk of
> being incorrect until it is "proven".


Correctness proofs for good algorithms are usually not that difficult.


> Note, even a "classical" algorithm has some risk that ones own
> implementation has made an error (perhaps typographical) in the
> implementation.


So, if it is hard enough to correctly implement a correct algorithm then...


> That being said, there are some fairly straight-forward algorithms for
> implementing EBNF translations directly as part of the parser
> generation. I would be very surprised in the EBNF translations in
> some of the more popular LL parser generators (e.g. ANTLR, JavaCC,
> RDP) were not robust.


Would you be surprised to learn that 4 of 22 grammars were
misclassified in the Ph.D. thesis on which one of these tools was
based?


> Lest one think that the conflict avoidance problem is a minor point,
> let me just say that I have seen numerous grammars where using regular
> expressions were an important key to making the grammar parseable.


This would be a compelling argument for EBNF if we could be sure that the
method produces correct results.


http://parsers.org/slk


Post a followup to this message

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