The reason i posted it here is I was wondering if I would get anywhere with bison/yacc based LALR(1) parsing, given the constraints that I have listed.
The other post was for a different (although related) concern. Arijit On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 12:31 AM, Hans Aberg <haber...@telia.com> wrote: > This is a list for help with with Bison, so you may not get any replies > here. > > Your description is rather vague, and rather than describing a problem, > you present your solution. If it is a known language, there are good > reasons somebody else has made hacks for that. > > It seems that you have already told such things here: > http://compilers.iecc.com/comparch/article/12-07-004 > > Hans > > > On 17 Aug 2012, at 20:10, A D wrote: > > > Thanks Hans, but I am not really looking for a C++ grammar. > > > > I need to write a parser for some other object oriented language, which > is as complex as C++/Java. > > > > And to complicate the matter further, this langauge has special > constructs that doesn't allow me to use the symbol table for distinguishing > between type and non-type identifier references. In other words, I will > have to return just one lexical token (say IDENTIFIER) from the lexer for > both type references as well as non-type variable references. > > Given these restrictions, I was wondering if writing a yacc/bison based > LALR(1) parser is really an (good) option for me. > > > > _______________________________________________ help-bison@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-bison
