Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
| From | "Ira Baxter" <idbaxter@semdesigns.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.compilers |
| Subject | Re: GLR state of the art? |
| Date | 2011-04-06 10:33 -0500 |
| Organization | Compilers Central |
| Message-ID | <11-04-006@comp.compilers> (permalink) |
| References | <11-04-005@comp.compilers> |
"Alex" <alexander.mikhailov@gmail.com> wrote in message > I'm looking into technologies allowing to parse languages from > arbitrary CF grammars. I know there are several approaches, Tomita > parsing being one example. I don't however know what is the current > opinion on various such technologies is. Is there, for example, > something which is considered superior to Tomita parsing by all > interesting measures? We use GLR parsers for our program transformation tool, DMS. We process something like 40 eal languages with it, and it works extremely well for almost everything, and we've found useful workarounds (e.g, adding semantic predicates) for virtually everything else. All I have to say is its one of the best technology design choices I have ever made; I have no regrets at all. -- Ira Baxter, CTO www.semanticdesigns.com
Back to comp.compilers | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar
GLR state of the art? Alex <alexander.mikhailov@gmail.com> - 2011-04-05 10:41 -0700 Re: GLR state of the art? "Ira Baxter" <idbaxter@semdesigns.com> - 2011-04-06 10:33 -0500
csiph-web