Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: question about linker
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2024 08:04:59 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <86ed2nmo2c.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <vi54e9$3ie0o$1@dont-email.me> <vicque$15ium$2@dont-email.me> <vid110$16hte$1@dont-email.me> <87mshhsrr0.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vidd2a$18k9j$1@dont-email.me> <8734j9sj0f.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vidnuj$1aned$1@dont-email.me> <87ttbpqzm1.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vie0j5$1g968$1@dont-email.me> <vieun5$1mcnr$3@dont-email.me> <vihamj$2cflq$1@dont-email.me> <vihili$2f79m$1@dont-email.me> <vihu63$2ipg0$1@dont-email.me> <vii3kq$2kmc8$1@dont-email.me> <vikqvf$3fhce$1@dont-email.me> <jNm3P.7909$XuU6.3431@fx40.iad> <vinkbv$8r4i$1@dont-email.me> <vinm3p$9auh$1@dont-email.me> <vinqt2$bede$1@dont-email.me> <20241203181358.493@kylheku.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2024 17:05:04 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="24be5a3bcc5136b6a89c55a2b150290e"; logging-data="1027617"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/bcqfHXa9V0b0ilusBIl9pYKrMhc0MSOQ="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Xvb5CzRMl4z32pX9rGdr3MB7KIM= sha1:MgYSzbbTMmPzjd72pC0GL0ZFJ1Y=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:389353

Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> writes:

> A hand written recursive descent parser will have the best tooling.

Recursive descent parsers work well for some classes of
context-free grammars.  Other context-free grammars, not
so much.

A hand written recursive descent parser might have better
tooling than any table-driven parser for the same language.
Then again, it might not, depending on how it was written,
and what table-driven alternatives are available.