Re: LL(1) vs LALR(1) parsers

sb@metis.no (Steinar Bang)
17 Dec 1995 00:33:13 -0500

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[19 earlier articles]
Re: LL(1) vs LALR(1) parsers bridges@cs.arizona.edu (1995-12-01)
Re: LL(1) vs LALR(1) parsers mparks@oz.net (1995-12-09)
Re: LL(1) vs LALR(1) parsers maatwerk@euronet.nl (1995-12-09)
Re: LL(1) vs LALR(1) parsers sperber@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de (Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor]) (1995-12-09)
Re: LL(1) vs LALR(1) parsers mparks@oz.net (1995-12-12)
Re: LL(1) vs LALR(1) parsers solution@gate.net (1995-12-16)
Re: LL(1) vs LALR(1) parsers sb@metis.no (1995-12-17)
Re: LL(1) vs LALR(1) parsers scooter@mccabe.com (Scott Stanchfield) (1995-12-18)
Re: LL(1) vs LALR(1) parsers G.A.Tijssen@eco.RUG.NL (Gert A. Tijssen) (1995-12-19)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: sb@metis.no (Steinar Bang)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 17 Dec 1995 00:33:13 -0500
Organization: AT&T GIS Norge AS, Horten, Norway
References: 95-11-051 95-12-062 95-12-074
Keywords: parse, tools

maatwerk@euronet.nl says...


  >> ... Wouldn't everyone be happy with a simple generator that checks
  >> the unattributed grammar and then generates a recursive-descent
  >> parser that you can fill in by hand? Does this exist?


Does PCCTS (Purdue Compiler Construction Tool Set) fill your needs?


Integrated parser and lexer spec., you can have productions take
arguments and return values, constructs a recursive descent parser
(that can be in C, or a self contained C++ class), can build an AST to
be traversed later. etc. etc.


See <URL:news:comp.compilers.tools.pccts> and the free compilers list
(posted to this newsgroup), for more info.


- Steinar
--

Post a followup to this message

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