On 25 February 2011 17:02, rjf <fate...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 25, 2:48 am, Ira Baxter <idbax...@semdesigns.com> wrote:
>> Part of this discussion started because Dave suggested that >> writing and maintaining a hand-written parser was harder >> than a parser-generator one, and consequently that Wolfram >> probably didn't write a parser by hand. > > Unless a language changes, it is not often that one is compelled > to change a parser. There are lots of reasons not to change a > language. > > Which is harder .. changing a hand-written (typically the only > plausible technique is > recursive descent), parser vs. changing the syntax table and > augments > for a (say) LALR or perhaps GLR parser? Why Dave should have an > educated > opinion on this, who knows. He claims to not be an expert, and I > accept that assessment. You need to look back at what I wrote. I'd basically got this information from reading some books on compiler design. I'm no expert, and have never tacked the dragon book, but I have done a little reading on the topic - I even bought a couple of books on compiler design, though I find them heavy going not having a computer science background. I suspect if one was reverse engineering a language like Mathematica, one would make many mistakes along the way, so using a method/tool where changes could be more readily accommodated, would be beneficial. > RJF Dave -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
