Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.compilers > #72 > unrolled thread

GLR state of the art?

Back to article view | Back to comp.compilers

Contents

  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

#72 — GLR state of the art?

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?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#73

"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

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.compilers

csiph-web