Koskimies K., Paakki J. Automating Language Implementation. Ellis Horwood, 1990.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....scanner generators, parser generators and compiler generators. Several tools for language implementation have been built based on Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 2000 0 7695 0493 0 00 10.00 (c) 2000 IEEE 1 attribute grammars, such as GAG [3] TOOLS [4], FNC 2 [5] PCCTS [6] Eli [7] and based on denotational semantics, such as MESS [8] Do we need another compiler interpreter generator tool None of the currently available tools support incremental language development, so the language designer had to design new languages from scratch or by ....

Koskimies K., Paakki J. Automating Language Implementation. Ellis Horwood, 1990.

....Ag system. The synthesizer generator (Reps, 1984) is a generator system intended for generating a complete language based editor. It employs its own specification language. The synthesizer generator emphasizes incremental updates to the syntax trees and the attributes (Reps et al. 1983) TOOLS (Koskimies and Paakki, 1990) incorporates the object oriented features into its specification language. In contrast to the existing systems, SSCC is intended as a general attribute grammar system for specifying computation on syntax trees. An SSCC specification is in a purely functional style, with C auxiliary routines ....

....tied to the left to right parsing of the input. This corresponds to the class of 1 pass attribute grammars, which is a proper subset of the (extended) ordered attribute grammars that SSCC can process. There are many existing attribute grammar systems (Gray et al. 1992; Kastens et al. 1982; Koskimies and Paakki, 1990). These systems implement editors (Reps, 1984) compilers (Farrow, 1984; Waite, 1990; Waite, 1993) compiler compilers, programming environments, and proof checkers (Reps and Alpern, 1984) SSCC has been used as the frontend of a parallel evaluation system for attribute grammars in the PVM ....

Koskimies, K. and J. Paakki (1990) Automating Language Implementation. Ellis Horwood, New York, NY, U.S.A.

....table of the minimum DFA. The lookahead problem is left to the scanner writer. In flex [16] the recommended way to get rid of look ahead (called backtracking) is to introduce error token definitions. By contrast, our approach solves the lookahead problem in a clean and automatic way. In TOOLS [12], backtracking is avoided by adding a new kind of token; it is similar to the error token approach. A user still needs to write code to handle the new 21 kind of token. Alex [14] introduces the if followed by operator to define the right context of a token. Instead of attacking the ....

Koskimies, K. and Paakki, J., Automating Language Implementation, Ellis Horwood, New York (1990).

....scanner generator Scangen [6] is similar to a Mealy machine, the look ahead problem is left to the scanner writer. In flex [11] a user introduces error token definitions to get rid of look ahead (called backtracking) A user still needs to write code to handle the new kind of token. In TOOLS [12], backtracking is avoided by adding a new kind of token; it is similar to the error token approach. Alex [9] introduces the if followed by operator. This operator actually changes the longest match convention. Alex does not allow look ahead in the general sense. LexAGen [13] which is similar to ....

K. Koskimies and J. Paakki, Automating Language Implementation, Ellis Horwood, New York (1990).

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC