Re: State-of-the-art algorithms for lexical analysis?

Path	csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED.news.iecc.com!nerds-end
From	Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@netscape.net>
Newsgroups	comp.compilers
Subject	Re: State-of-the-art algorithms for lexical analysis?
Date	Wed, 8 Jun 2022 05:32:40 +0200
Organization	Compilers Central
Lines	15
Sender	news@iecc.com
Approved	comp.compilers@iecc.com
Message-ID	<22-06-021@comp.compilers> (permalink)
References	<22-06-006@comp.compilers> <22-06-007@comp.compilers> <22-06-008@comp.compilers> <22-06-013@comp.compilers> <22-06-015@comp.compilers> <22-06-019@comp.compilers>
Mime-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding	8bit
Injection-Info	gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="64848"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com"
Keywords	lex, history
Posted-Date	09 Jun 2022 12:33:49 EDT
X-submission-address	compilers@iecc.com
X-moderator-address	compilers-request@iecc.com
X-FAQ-and-archives	http://compilers.iecc.com
Xref	csiph.com comp.compilers:3058

Show key headers only | View raw

On 6/7/22 6:40 PM, Christopher F Clark wrote:

> And, as our moderator pointed out, this makes a terrible regular
> expression, NFA, DFA, but it is actually quite easy in nearly any
> programming language.

Now I know what made me think of Hollerith constants with the "H" :-)

I doubt that it's "quite easy" to use Hollerith constants for humans -
how often do you have to check whether you got the right number of
characters when reading or writing such a constant? So the delimited
form of strings is easier to handle by both humans and DFA's, a win-win
situation :-)

DoDi

Back to comp.compilers | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

State-of-the-art algorithms for lexical analysis? Roger L Costello <costello@mitre.org> - 2022-06-05 20:53 +0000
  Re: State-of-the-art algorithms for lexical analysis? gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2022-06-05 16:05 -0700
    Re: State-of-the-art algorithms for lexical analysis? Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@netscape.net> - 2022-06-06 08:59 +0200
      State-of-the-art algorithms for lexical analysis? Christopher F Clark <christopher.f.clark@compiler-resources.com> - 2022-06-06 21:16 +0300
        Re: State-of-the-art algorithms for lexical analysis? Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@netscape.net> - 2022-06-07 06:52 +0200
          Re: State-of-the-art algorithms for lexical analysis? Christopher F Clark <christopher.f.clark@compiler-resources.com> - 2022-06-07 19:40 +0300
            Re: State-of-the-art algorithms for lexical analysis? Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@netscape.net> - 2022-06-08 05:32 +0200
              Re: counted strings, was State-of-the-art algorithms for lexical analysis? gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2022-06-09 11:54 -0700
                Re: counted characters in strings "Robin Vowels" <robin51@dodo.com.au> - 2022-06-10 12:21 +1000
                Re: counted characters in strings Martin Ward <martin@gkc.org.uk> - 2022-06-11 10:52 +0100
                Re: counted characters in strings drb@msu.edu (Dennis Boone) - 2022-06-11 11:09 -0500
    Re: State-of-the-art algorithms for lexical analysis? Kaz Kylheku <480-992-1380@kylheku.com> - 2022-06-06 16:00 +0000
    References for PSL ? Christopher F Clark <christopher.f.clark@compiler-resources.com> - 2022-06-06 20:11 +0300

csiph-web