[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Bison and LR(1) Parsers
From: |
Tim Josling |
Subject: |
Re: Bison and LR(1) Parsers |
Date: |
Wed, 18 Jul 2001 07:12:31 +1000 |
I want to finish the current phase of my compiler before doing
anything to bison. This will be in a couple of months eg
September/October. I am very confident that full LR(1) would
satisfy my needs. The Fortest approach does implement full LR(1)
function, though in a new way. The question is whether the Fortes
approach is best, or whether standard LR(1) would be best.
If someone implements the Fortes approach in a reasonable time, I
would use that, otherwise I would propose to write vanilla LR(1)
functionality. If the Fortes approach has not been done by
Septembet/October I will be looking to add LR(1) to bison. At
that time I would be asking for an indication that a patch to do
that would be acceptable in principle.
Tim Josling
Akim Demaille wrote:
> Tim> All your comments make sense. I am just about to go off and get a
> Tim> copy fo the Fortes paper. I did a search and he doesn't seem to
> Tim> have patented it though there are patents in the LR parser space,
> Tim> notably from IBM.
>
> Tim> I will await an official verdict before writing anything.
>
> I personally have no idea whether the new technology which have been
> proposed for Bison would satisfy your needs. That's probably what
> first needs to be checked.
>
> I start to think that CVS branch might be a good approach to Bison's
> development. But I hate them :)
>
- Re: Bison and LR(1) Parsers,
Tim Josling <=