>> You mean, Fortran is not parseable by Bison, is that what you mean?
>
>Not practical.
I've written Fortran 77 parsers in yacc. It's quite easy.
The lexical structure of Fortran is dreadful, but once you understand
the hacks required, it's straightforward to pre-scan each statement to
figure o
On 18 Aug 2012, at 22:39, John Levine wrote:
>>> You mean, Fortran is not parseable by Bison, is that what you mean?
>>
>> Not practical.
>
> I've written Fortran 77 parsers in yacc. It's quite easy.
>
> The lexical structure of Fortran is dreadful, but once you understand
> the hacks required
[Please keep the cc to the list, is that others can follow the issue.]
On 18 Aug 2012, at 11:15, A D wrote:
> You mean, Fortran is not parseable by Bison, is that what you mean?
Not practical.
Hans
___
help-bison@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailm
One can parse a more general language, and cut it down in the actions, but it
may not be practically feasible. For example, Fortran, not really, I am told.
Hans
On 18 Aug 2012, at 11:02, A D wrote:
> The reason i posted it here is I was wondering if I would get anywhere with
> bison/yacc base
The reason i posted it here is I was wondering if I would get anywhere with
bison/yacc based LALR(1) parsing, given the constraints that I have listed.
The other post was for a different (although related) concern.
Arijit
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 12:31 AM, Hans Aberg wrote:
> This is a list for
