Re: Help needed on LALR(1) ambiguity

"Armel" <armelasselin@hotmail.com>
Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:24:12 +0100

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Help needed on LALR(1) ambiguity philip.k.chow@gmail.com (2008-11-14)
Re: Help needed on LALR(1) ambiguity cdodd@acm.org (Chris Dodd) (2008-11-17)
Re: Help needed on LALR(1) ambiguity armelasselin@hotmail.com (Armel) (2008-11-17)
Re: Help needed on LALR(1) ambiguity svenolof.nystrom-nospam@bredband.net (Sven-Olof Nystrom) (2008-11-18)
Re: Help needed on LALR(1) ambiguity philip.k.chow@gmail.com (2008-11-18)
Re: Help needed on LALR(1) ambiguity Danny.Dube@ift.ulaval.ca (2008-12-01)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: "Armel" <armelasselin@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:24:12 +0100
Organization: les newsgroups par Orange
References: 08-11-055 08-11-075
Keywords: LALR, parse
Posted-Date: 17 Nov 2008 18:29:15 EST

> So the problem is that you need to be able to look ahead to the end of the
> input to see how many |-suffixes there are in order to figure out how to
> parse the beginning of the expression. This makes it pretty much
> impossible
> to parse without unbounded lookahead, or backtracking, or something else.


That's just MHO but for the untrained eye, it also means that the language
is almost incomprehensible... large expressions cannot be understood without
reading all the epxression(!?).


If the OP is still designing the language i'm pretty sure that it would be
great idea to find another, still elegant, way to write the same thing and
avoid the conflict by design... generators which find conflicts are indeed
good indicators of situations which were overseen by the designer but will
certainely loose the actual programmer.


HIH
Armel



Post a followup to this message

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