| |||||||||||||
Why learn C? (O'Reilly Radar)Why learn C? (O'Reilly Radar)Posted Jul 1, 2012 23:02 UTC (Sun) by tjc (subscriber, #137)In reply to: Why learn C? (O'Reilly Radar) by HelloWorld Parent article: Why learn C? (O'Reilly Radar)
The compiler has this information available to it in the symbol table.
(Log in to post comments)
Why learn C? (O'Reilly Radar) Posted Jul 1, 2012 23:20 UTC (Sun) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129) [Link]
I know, this is the well-known lexer hack. I still don't see how the syntax I've proposed is supposed to be any more problematic than conventional C syntax.
Why learn C? (O'Reilly Radar) Posted Jul 2, 2012 20:36 UTC (Mon) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link]
The type specifier in a C declaration acts as a surrogate for the missing 'var' or 'func' keyword, which makes it possible for the parser to recognize the declaration without requesting a lot of extra tokens from the lexer.
Why learn C? (O'Reilly Radar) Posted Jul 2, 2012 21:23 UTC (Mon) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129) [Link]
I think that this is only a problem when using top-down parsers. A bottom-up parser should handle this situation easily.
Why learn C? (O'Reilly Radar) Posted Jul 3, 2012 15:46 UTC (Tue) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link]
Yes, it could be made to work, but it would have to be a backtracking parser, and it would probably be slow. Most bottom-up parsers (such as those produced by bison) are LALR(1), which only has one token look-ahead.
|
|||||||||||||