> That may be because it is no longer possible to write a BNF grammar for
> these compilers due to the c-style extensions.
AFAIK if a parser can be made for an extension, so is the grammar.
> There are some language constructs that is simply not posible with a LL(1)
> parser,
> when comparing to
Marc Santhoff wrote:
Am Freitag, den 16.10.2009, 22:50 +0200 schrieb Graeme Geldenhuys:
2009/10/15 Marc Santhoff :
is a complete grammar for fpc written in some variant of BNF available
somewhere?
...
If you have fun fiddling with those tools some good starting points are:
http://catalog.
Am Freitag, den 16.10.2009, 22:50 +0200 schrieb Graeme Geldenhuys:
> 2009/10/15 Marc Santhoff :
> >
> > is a complete grammar for fpc written in some variant of BNF available
> > somewhere?
>
> About 2 weeks ago, I had no clue what BNF was. Funny that you mention
> it, because I am working on a La
2009/10/15 Marc Santhoff :
>
> is a complete grammar for fpc written in some variant of BNF available
> somewhere?
About 2 weeks ago, I had no clue what BNF was. Funny that you mention
it, because I am working on a LaTeX converter to IPF. I was google'ing
for a BNF for LaTeX, as a starting point.
Am Donnerstag, den 15.10.2009, 23:58 -0700 schrieb leledumbo:
> > is a complete grammar for fpc written in some variant of BNF available
> > somewhere?
> >
> > I searched the website and the wiki, to no avail.
>
> AFAIK, there's none. The developers adding language features by directly
> modifyin
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 4:58 AM, leledumbo wrote:
> AFAIK, there's none. The developers adding language features by directly
> modifying the code. Even there's a bounty for it. See:
> http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Bounties#FPC_grammar
I contacted the person that posted the bounty but he didn
mar...@stack.nl:
> The reason is probably more because Wirthian languages traditionally use
> recursive descent parsers.
Yeah, right.
The reason is most definitely that of all those people who know the language
well enough to write the grammar, there's no one actually doing it.
Of course, with
Florian Klaempfl schrieb:
> Frank Peelo schrieb:
>> Is the problem that you start off with a grammar, write the parser, then
>> maintain the parser without updating the grammar?
>>
>
> Every early FPC (FPK Pascal) prototypes in 1993 used yacc as well but it
Very early ...
Frank Peelo schrieb:
>
> Is the problem that you start off with a grammar, write the parser, then
> maintain the parser without updating the grammar?
>
Every early FPC (FPK Pascal) prototypes in 1993 used yacc as well but it
was simply too slow and also memory consuming at these days.
__
On 16/10/2009 10:53, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
Marco van de Voort schrieb:
In our previous episode, J�rgen Hestermann said:
There is not even a proper open one for Delphi. At least there wasn't till a
while back.
That may be because it is no longer possible to write a BNF grammar for
these c
In our previous episode, Florian Klaempfl said:
> >> these compilers due to the c-style extensions.
> >
> > Odd that there are grammers for C and C++ then, and they have no problem :-)
> > Please don't grab any random other thread to make your point.
> >
> > The reason is probably more because Wi
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Marc Santhoff wrote:
> is a complete grammar for fpc written in some variant of BNF available
> somewhere?
>
Gold parser builder has a BNF grammar for Delphi 7 (AFAIK, incomplete):
http://www.devincook.com/goldparser/grammars/index.htm
Regards,
Gerard.
___
The reason is probably more because Wirthian languages traditionally use
recursive descent parsers.
gcc as well for several years simply because a recursive descent parser
is faster than one generated automatically from a BNF grammar.
That is true, but the _expression_ po
Marco van de Voort schrieb:
> In our previous episode, J�rgen Hestermann said:
>>> There is not even a proper open one for Delphi. At least there wasn't till a
>>> while back.
>> That may be because it is no longer possible to write a BNF grammar for
>> these compilers due to the c-style extension
In our previous episode, J?rgen Hestermann said:
> > There is not even a proper open one for Delphi. At least there wasn't till a
> > while back.
>
> That may be because it is no longer possible to write a BNF grammar for
> these compilers due to the c-style extensions.
Odd that there are gramme
On 16 Oct 2009, at 10:42, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
That may be because it is no longer possible to write a BNF grammar
for these compilers due to the c-style extensions.
BNF grammars exist for C (e.g. as part of the ANSI C standard) and
even for C++. Please don't start a language war in ev
There is not even a proper open one for Delphi. At least there wasn't till a
while back.
That may be because it is no longer possible to write a BNF grammar for
these compilers due to the c-style extensions.
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lis
In our previous episode, leledumbo said:
>
> > is a complete grammar for fpc written in some variant of BNF available
> > somewhere?
> >
> > I searched the website and the wiki, to no avail.
>
> AFAIK, there's none. The developers adding language features by directly
> modifying the code. Even t
> is a complete grammar for fpc written in some variant of BNF available
> somewhere?
>
> I searched the website and the wiki, to no avail.
AFAIK, there's none. The developers adding language features by directly
modifying the code. Even there's a bounty for it. See:
http://wiki.lazarus.freepasc
Hi everyone,
is a complete grammar for fpc written in some variant of BNF available
somewhere?
I searched the website and the wiki, to no avail.
TIA,
Marc
--
Marc Santhoff
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.free
20 matches
Mail list logo
