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


Groups > comp.lang.forth > #9349

Re: Dburg and swi-prolog

From anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl)
Newsgroups comp.lang.forth
Subject Re: Dburg and swi-prolog
Date 2012-02-01 14:32 +0000
Organization Institut fuer Computersprachen, Technische Universitaet Wien
Message-ID <2012Feb1.153234@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> (permalink)
References <b18847f5-67c7-4527-b553-e494a999e9d3@o14g2000vbo.googlegroups.com> <2012Jan31.160919@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <70a46a19-3871-4eed-8488-66abbe1b3900@j14g2000vba.googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw


Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> writes:
>On Jan 31, 3:09=A0pm, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl)
>wrote:
>> Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> writes:
>> >Anton: I stumbled on dburg while researching how to modify lcc's md
>> >files to generate rules, and discovering that running against a DAG
>> >rather than a tree isn't quite as straightforward as I'd thought. With
>> >dburg downloaded, I tried running the Prolog provided on swi-prolog
>> >since the recommended Sicstus Prolog costs serious money.
>>
>> Even if you had Sicstus, I would not recommend using dburg. =A0It's only
>> a grammar checker, so it does not generate a DAG parser, and it's only
>> proof-of-concept quality.
>
>Grammar checking seemed like a good goal, since I'm having to write
>(or at least heavily modify) an existing grammar.

I actually don't see it as very valuable in practice.  If parsing DAGs
leads to suboptimal code in a few cases, the checker would say that
the grammar is not usable for optimal DAG parsing.  But the grammar
may still be better than the usual alternatives, like splitting the
DAGs into trees.

You can just use an unchecked grammar, and if you find out that there
is too much duplicated effort in the resulting code, tweak the
grammar to reduce that.

- anton
-- 
M. Anton Ertl  http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
     New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
   EuroForth 2011: http://www.euroforth.org/ef11/

Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

Dburg and swi-prolog Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-30 13:52 -0800
  Re: Dburg and swi-prolog anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-31 15:09 +0000
    Re: Dburg and swi-prolog Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-31 09:43 -0800
      Re: Dburg and swi-prolog anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-02-01 14:32 +0000

csiph-web