Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.compilers > #1711
| Path | csiph.com!feeder.erje.net!2.us.feeder.erje.net!newspeer1.nac.net!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED.news.iecc.com!nerds-end |
|---|---|
| From | George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> |
| Newsgroups | comp.compilers |
| Subject | Re: precedences vs. hierarchy |
| Date | Mon, 06 Jun 2016 12:35:55 -0400 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Lines | 33 |
| Sender | news@iecc.com |
| Approved | comp.compilers@iecc.com |
| Message-ID | <16-06-005@comp.compilers> (permalink) |
| References | <16-06-001@comp.compilers> |
| Mime-Version | 1.0 |
| Content-Type | text/plain; charset=us-ascii |
| Content-Transfer-Encoding | 8bit |
| Injection-Info | miucha.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="23873"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" |
| Keywords | parse |
| Posted-Date | 07 Jun 2016 10:54:27 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:1711 |
Show key headers only | View raw
On Mon, 6 Jun 2016 09:08:56 +0200, Andreas Schramm <bassobajo@gmail.com> wrote: >for specifying the syntax of operator expressions >with multiple levels of precedences, >there are essentially two approaches: >(i) by precedence and associativity declarations, and >(ii) by a hierarchy of non-terminals. >Both approaches have been known and in use for decades. > >My question is: >Are there trends in the public opinion >in favor of one of them over the other? >Or are they equally respected approaches? In general, precedence is shorter and easier to define. However when there are many levels, associativity can be hard to get right, and incorrect associativity chaining can be difficult to debug. Non-terminal operator heirarchies are more work to define, but they usually are easier to fix when associativity is wrong. Your tools will dictate which approach you can use: few (if any) LL tools support operator precedence, while all (?) LR tools do support it. If your tool supports precedence, you still can choose to use an explicit heirarchy instead if that works better for you. What matters most is getting your grammar right ... don't worry too much about what other people think of it. Hope this helps, George
Back to comp.compilers | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
precedences vs. hierarchy Andreas Schramm <bassobajo@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 09:08 +0200
Re: precedences vs. hierarchy "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2016-06-06 17:08 +0200
Re: precedences vs. hierarchy Kaz Kylheku <545-066-4921@kylheku.com> - 2016-06-07 15:35 +0000
Re: precedences vs. hierarchy "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2016-06-07 22:53 +0200
Re: precedences vs. hierarchy anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-06-08 09:48 +0000
Re: precedences vs. hierarchy George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2016-06-06 12:35 -0400
Re: precedences vs. hierarchy federation2005@netzero.com - 2016-06-06 14:01 -0700
Example: The Full Syntax Of Prolog (Re: precedences vs. hierarchy) rockbrentwood@gmail.com - 2016-08-24 15:45 -0700
csiph-web