Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!news.alt.net!news.kjsl.com!rahul.net!wasp.rahul.net!rahul.net!news.lightlink.com!news.iecc.com!nerds-end From: "Ira Baxter" Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: GLR state of the art? Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 10:33:46 -0500 Organization: Compilers Central Lines: 20 Sender: news@iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <11-04-006@comp.compilers> References: <11-04-005@comp.compilers> NNTP-Posting-Host: news.iecc.com X-Trace: gal.iecc.com 1302152057 99727 64.57.183.58 (7 Apr 2011 04:54:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@iecc.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 04:54:17 +0000 (UTC) Keywords: parse, GLR Posted-Date: 07 Apr 2011 00:54:17 EDT X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com X-FAQ-and-archives: http://compilers.iecc.com Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.compilers:73 "Alex" 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