"Manuel M. T. Chakravarty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I didn't say that this works for any kind of parser
> combinator, I merely said that it works Doitse's and mine.
> Both implement SLL(1) parsers for which - as I am sure, you
> know - there exists a decision procedure for testing
> ambiguit
Thomas Johnsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
> Happy and others like it generate an LR parser, which is a well-established
> technology since the late 60's (Knuth): efficient,
> deterministic, and checks the grammar for you.
> Parser combinators are usually nondeterministic ie
> backtracking (pre-
"Carl R. Witty" wrote:
>
> "Manuel M. T. Chakravarty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I don't think, the point is the test for non-ambiguity. At
> > least, Doitse's and my self-optimising parser combinator
> > library will detect that a grammar is ambigious when you
> > parse a sentence invol
"Manuel M. T. Chakravarty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't think, the point is the test for non-ambiguity. At
> least, Doitse's and my self-optimising parser combinator
> library will detect that a grammar is ambigious when you
> parse a sentence involving the ambiguous productions. So,
>
Manuel M. T. Chakravarty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
[received message twice]
Am I just the only one or does everybody receive
messages posted to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] twice? I find
it a bit (I know I am exaggerating) annoying.
Is there a way to avoid this?
Regards,
Marc
__
S. Alexander Jacobson writes:
> I am not a parsing expert, but given the recent discussion on macros, I
> have to ask: why use happy rather than monadic parsing? Monadic parsing
> allows you to avoid a whole additional language/compilation step and work
> in Hugs (where you don't have a make
Just out of curiosity, has anyone done any work at benchmarking the
various parsers? I use Parsec pretty exclusivly since it comes with ghc
and is pretty straightforward and lightweight to use. I am wondering
what I am giving up in terms of speed by going that route, rather than
Happy or the comp
"S. Alexander Jacobson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am not a parsing expert, but given the recent discussion on macros, I
> have to ask: why use happy rather than monadic parsing? Monadic parsing
> allows you to avoid a whole additional language/compilation step and work
> in Hugs (where you
S. Alexander Jacobson writes:
> I am not a parsing expert, but given the recent discussion on
> macros, I
> have to ask: why use happy rather than monadic parsing?
> Monadic parsing
> allows you to avoid a whole additional language/compilation
> step and work
> in Hugs (where you don't have
