On Fri, Apr 13, 2001 at 03:12:57AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I have some interest in proposals to switch to a better parser-generator
> tool than yacc ...
There are tools to produce efficient top-down parsers as well. Those
doing such parsers "by hand" may be interested in looking at PCCTS
(http:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathan Myers) writes:
> Yacc and yacc-like programs are most useful when the target grammar (or
> your understanding of it) is not very stable. With Yacc you can make
> sweeping changes much more easily; big changes can be a lot of work in
> a hand-coded parser.
And, in fac
On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 10:44:59PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Mark Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > ...
> > The advantages of using a hand written recursive descent parser lie in
> > 1) ease of implementing grammar changes
> > 2) ease of debugging
> > 3) ability to handle unusual case
Mark Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Interesting. What advantages would there be?
>
> As any one who has ever attempted to build a C++ parser using Yacc or Bison
> can attest, it is very difficult to get an LALR based parser to correctly
> parse a sophisticated
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Interesting. What advantages would there be?
As any one who has ever attempted to build a C++ parser using Yacc or Bison
can attest, it is very difficult to get an LALR based parser to correctly
parse a sophisticated grammar. The advantages of using a hand written
recurs