3 ms·
That depends on the language you're trying to parse. If it has a LL or LR grammar, it'll work well. If it's something else that can't be described with somethin
by Zababa 5y ago
That depends on the language you're trying to parse. If it has a LL or LR grammar, it'll work well. If it's something else that can't be described with something like that or something less powerful, you're going to have a bad time.
- chrisseaton 5y ago> That depends on the language you're trying to parse. Yes... but most practical languages do not have simple LL or LR grammars. Hence this blog post and discussion and these problems.
- Zababa 5y agoThat's not true. You can have a LL or LR grammar, and use a hand-written parser to get better speed, better error reporting, any number of reasons really. Java is LL(1), but javac seem to use a hand-written recursive descent parser. Now that I think about it, Java being omitted is weird.
- chrisseaton 5y agoWhat’s not true? I said ‘most’ not ‘all’, and nobody here said the only reason to hand-write a parser was context sensitivity.
- UncleEntity 5y ago> Java is LL(1)... Java hasn't ever been able to be parsed with one token look ahead, the earlier versions had a section on how to modify the grammar to be LALR(1)[0] but it was dropped in later versions of the specification -- probably due to added features which made it unfeasible like generic classes. It's actually quite a good resource since they explain the reasons why the parser needs to have more than one token to figure out what's going on. [0] http://titanium.cs.berkeley.edu/doc/java-langspec-1.0/19.doc.html http://titanium.cs.berkeley.edu/doc/java-langspec-1.0/19.doc...