On 07/07/2012 21:17, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On 07-Jul-12 22:23, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 7/7/12 6:24 AM, Roman D. Boiko wrote:
On Saturday, 7 July 2012 at 09:06:57 UTC, Roman D. Boiko wrote:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/11373644/performance-of-parsers-peg-vs-lalr1-or-llk
So far it looks like LALR parsers may have lower constant factors than
Packrat.
The difference could be minimized by paying attention to parsing of
terminal symbols, which was in my plans already. It is not necessary to
strictly follow Packrat parsing algorithm.
The benefits of Pegged, in my view, are its support of Parsing
Expression Grammar (PEG) and compile-time evaluation. It is easily
extensible and modifiable.
Isn't also the fact that lexing and parsing are integrated? With
traditional LALR you need a separate tokenizer.
I'll have to point out that the whole point about integrated lexing is
moot. It's more of liability then benefit. At very least it's just
implementation curiosity not advantage.
Many usages only need a lexer.
