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 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.albasani.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Niklas Holsti Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Interesting article on ARG work Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2018 10:50:12 +0300 Organization: Tidorum Ltd Message-ID: References: <1b44444f-c1b3-414e-84fb-8798961487c3@googlegroups.com> <62ee0aac-49da-4925-b9aa-a16695b3fc45@googlegroups.com> <9879872e-c18a-4667-afe5-41ce0f54559f@googlegroups.com> <80db2d05-744f-4201-ba1b-4436f8040491@googlegroups.com> <59f9ab6d-d6ba-45ff-a6f0-c5699983d9e8@googlegroups.com> <1a390e22-f49f-4028-8e58-ca4d0f51e4b6@googlegroups.com> <195739aa-2f32-4cba-80ac-e60591e94712@googlegroups.com> <8c44fc67-2183-42d8-a61e-8a15ce2ba44c@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net 9wz4d/wmYSz41OKdTCIyNwIOCP107tHBwZ4IQyUe/Drh+g0g9x Cancel-Lock: sha1:ieLEM/EZqlUO+8WRJqRkFsoSeeY= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 In-Reply-To: <8c44fc67-2183-42d8-a61e-8a15ce2ba44c@googlegroups.com> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:51507 Date: 2018-04-15T10:50:12+03:00 List-Id: On 18-04-10 22:46 , Dan'l Miller wrote: > On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 2:23:24 PM UTC-5, Niklas Holsti wrote: >> For a GLR parser, >> >> _just_ a GLR parser >> >> _just_ GLR parsing. >> >> In plain GLR parsing >> >> That is true for the "Fork-Merge LR" (FMLR) parsing in the paper >> you referenced, but that is not GLR. >> >> _just_ a GLR > > Which flavor of generalized LR are you taking as the sole seminal > reference to definitively brand the official “just GLR” and “plain > GLR”? There are 2 seminal references historically: Bernard Lang > (1974) and Tomita Masaru (1985). Lang's versus Tomita's 2 approaches > to GLR are substantially different. I just went by the Wikipedia article that you referenced (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GLR_parser), which does not mention context dependency, and the statement in the FMLR paper that their method is different from GLR. Perhaps our disagreements are partly due to my strict interpretation of "parsing" as separate from "semantic analysis", while some people, and perhaps you, grant a "parser" the right to depend on context, such as on information collected into a symbol table. The symbol table (and its dependence on configuration-variable values) is an essential part of the FMLR processor. Perhaps we can conclude this debate by agreeing that the FMLR method can process C source, with macros and #ifdefs, and check that all variants are syntactically valid, without separately processing /all/ the source with /all/ the combinations of configuration-variable values. It still cannot be called a "one pass" process, because it splits into (conceptually) parallel processes when needed (and, depending on some delicate choices, the number of such processes can be exponential in the number of configuration variables). -- Niklas Holsti Tidorum Ltd niklas holsti tidorum fi . @ .