Path: csiph.com!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.misty.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED.news.iecc.com!nerds-end From: Hans-Peter Diettrich Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: Best language for implementing compilers? Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2019 10:14:01 +0100 Organization: Compilers Central Lines: 15 Sender: news@iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <19-03-003@comp.compilers> References: <19-02-002@comp.compilers> <19-02-004@comp.compilers> <19-02-006@comp.compilers> <19-03-002@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="90489"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" Keywords: parse Posted-Date: 09 Mar 2019 20:27:45 EST 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:2169 Am 09.03.2019 um 07:47 schrieb mertesthomas@gmail.com: > For parsing I don't think that pattern matching leads to correct > results in all cases. I have seen too much buggy attempts to do > parsing with pattern matching. Even for such simple things as > lines with key=value I saw "solutions" with pattern matching, that > triggered bugs when the line was not simple. A good approach for > parsing is LL(1), which has nothing to do with pattern matching. IMO bottom-up parsers (LR) do pattern matching, in contrast to top-down parsers (LL). Where bottom-up parsers can suffer from shift/reduce conflicts. DoDi