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: 103376,4fd338e56f592cfb X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Received: by 10.180.87.193 with SMTP id ba1mr11513988wib.0.1367359744449; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 15:09:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.180.89.176 with SMTP id bp16mr473088wib.13.1367359744427; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 15:09:04 -0700 (PDT) Path: p18ni50133wiv.0!nntp.google.com!15no11580247wij.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 15:09:03 -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 22:09:04 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: 2013-04-30T15:09:03-07:00 List-Id: On Tuesday, April 30, 2013 3:18:56 PM UTC-6, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 09:06:53 -0700 (PDT), Shark8 wrote: >=20 >=20 > The way humans parse texts and consequently grammars of programming are > uncorrelated to the classes of formal grammars. That's part of why they're interesting. > This is why formal grammars proved to be quite useless for compiler const= ruction. They're not the only thing that could be defined to be parsed w/ a grammar = though -- a configuration formulation, or a DB-dump, or as part of a distri= buted system's serialize/deserialize specification could all benefit from b= eing defined in a formal grammar (as opposed to an ad-hoc/"grown" method). > Practically there is no language for which recursive descent parser would= not work, provided that literals, identifiers and expressions are parsed b= y other means. Perhaps; but this doesn't mean that recursive-decent is the best in every s= ituation. After all, just because there is no collection of sortable items = that can't be sorted via Bubblesort doesn't mean that that's the suitable m= ethod for the problem. > Specifically, parsing Ada imposes no problems at all. *nod* -- I didn't think there was. I was talking more on the general subjec= t.