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
ambiguity. More
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
ambiguity. More
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
* Marc van Dongen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2001-05-11T10:52+0100]:
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
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
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,
you can
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 involving the
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
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
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,
you can
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 involving the
Combining two threads...
Like macros and preprocessors, Happy generates code.
I assume the justification for this is that hand-coding a parser in
Haskell is presumed to be too difficult or that it is too hard to get the
right level of abstraction (and therefore a macro-like facility is
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
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
Combining two threads...
Like macros and preprocessors, Happy generates code.
I assume the justification for this is that hand-coding a parser in
Haskell is presumed to be too difficult or that it is too hard to get the
right level of abstraction (and therefore a macro-like facility is
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 don't
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
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
18 matches
Mail list logo
