From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,4fd338e56f592cfb X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII X-Received: by 10.224.215.194 with SMTP id hf2mr109588qab.0.1367344273631; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:51:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.67.111 with SMTP id m15mr1016230igt.12.1367344273585; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:51:13 -0700 (PDT) Path: ef9ni37798qab.0!nntp.google.com!s14no1312649qam.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:51:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=69.20.190.126; posting-account=lJ3JNwoAAAAQfH3VV9vttJLkThaxtTfC NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.20.190.126 References: <85sj2aydwi.fsf@stephe-leake.org> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: LALR parser question From: Shark8 Injection-Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 17:51:13 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: 2013-04-30T10:51:13-07:00 List-Id: On Tuesday, April 30, 2013 11:15:00 AM UTC-6, Hibou57 (Yannick Duch=EAne) w= rote: > Le Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:06:53 +0200, Shark8 a =20 >=20 > =E9crit: > > hybrid ascent-descent >=20 > That's a part of what I have in mind too :p But won't read the paper you = =20 > mention, because I don't want to be influenced by others ideas on that = =20 > topic, to avoid to unconsciously repeat what others already did. :) Yep, I haven't read it either but it looks quite interesting. And I can tot= ally respect not wanting to copy others -- that was a main peeve of mine wh= en in college, mentioning I was working on an OS and then being told "just = get the Linux source." > Since some time I'm thinking again I should try to do one applying the = =20 > idea I have in mind. The hybrid ascent-descent is indeed an option, while= =20 > I believe the ascent is the most natural. I'm not sure about that; recursive decent is really natural for anyone who'= s done recursion -- See: http://compilers.iecc.com/crenshaw/ > I think the parser should read =20 > as the humans read, and humans, the most of the time, start looking at th= e =20 > tiny parts (the bottom) and goes bottom-up, and just occasionally go =20 > top-down, and so just when there is a clear marker for this, like a =20 > heading title in a text as an example and any other marker which only =20 > appears at the top of a construct. Really, I thought they read in a more top-down manner, with perhaps things = front-loaded [i.e. forward-declared] as in sections and a TOC. But that's why it's such an interesting field: there's a lot of ways to do = it and a lot of them have different strengths and weaknesses.