From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id pB18NGiR009862 for ; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 09:23:16 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AngBACs4107RVdK2mGdsb2JhbABEqhB4CCIBAQEBAQgJDQcUJYILAiwBGx4DEgkHXQERAQUBIjWgR4JcCotkgmqEfj2IcQIFCosWBIgihQiHLY1ePYN8 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,277,1320620400"; d="scan'208";a="121619040" Received: from mail-iy0-f182.google.com ([209.85.210.182]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 01 Dec 2011 09:23:10 +0100 Received: by iakl21 with SMTP id l21so3439857iak.27 for ; Thu, 01 Dec 2011 00:23:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=DY3CWALsYsgp5dbP1BDKkcakNe9mkT16v/fDlj5mkVU=; b=P1BuszgMDu4q/XpXCo5b3VgVEyCYaZNMKpdiSPOlatQdWWmT/dRfD94GFCl/2xIn1o jzY4BFH7cUPaOgNP5naDMwbOOQqcys1yAcHvVuW9FqaBRjJkJn3+1k9iJu2doZMQOzMe kIsouVePxEFZBiVSycdoCTh+YwLpTjGJrfDOU= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.65.73 with SMTP id h9mr1590509ibi.21.1322727789543; Thu, 01 Dec 2011 00:23:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.42.202.8 with HTTP; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 00:23:09 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 12:23:09 +0400 Message-ID: From: Kakadu To: Caml List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00151773e29607c1f004b3039094 Subject: [Caml-list] Idea about parser --00151773e29607c1f004b3039094 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hello! How difficult is to create a tool described below? This Tool will look at AST (maybe specific, with some restrictions; maybe a syntax extendion of ML-like language) of parser (which uses combinators) and will generate parsing code according next rules: 1) this parser-function parses a grammar with some ambiguities --- GLR parser is a right choice 2) this parser-function ......................??????................................... --- recursive descent is better. 3) this parser-function .......................????...................................... --- we should use LALR parser. Now I have code examples which generate parsers of different types from some DSL. AFAIU the main problems are: 1) how to build grammar from parser-combinators code? 2) how to analyze grammar? Best wishes, Kakadu --00151773e29607c1f004b3039094 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable H= ello!

How difficult is to create a tool described be= low?

This Tool will look at AST (maybe spe= cific, with some restrictions; maybe a syntax extendion of ML-like language= )=A0 of parser (which uses combinators) and will generate parsing code acco= rding next rules:
1) this parser-fun= ction parses a grammar with some=A0 ambiguit= ies --- GLR parser is a right choice
2) this par= ser-function ......................??????..................................= . --- recursive descent is better.
3) this parser-function .......................????........................= .............. --- we should use LALR parser.

Now I have code examples which generate parser= s of different types from some DSL. AFAIU the main problems are:
1) how to build grammar from parser-combinators code?
2) how to analyze = grammar?

Best wishes,
Kakadu
--00151773e29607c1f004b3039094--