BEETEM, J. F. AND BEETEM, A. F. 1991. Incremental scanning and parsing with Galaxy. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 17, 7 (July), 641--651.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....but its restriction to LR(0) grammars limits its applicability. LL(1) grammars are more practical (having been used in the definitions of several programming languages) and techniques have been developed for incremental top down parsing using this grammar class [Murching et al. 1990; Beetem and Beetem 1991; Shilling 1992] Li [1995a] describes a sentential form LL(1) parser that can accommodate multiple edit sites. Jalili and Gallier [1982] were the first to provide an incremental parsing algorithm suitable for LR(1) grammars and multiple edit sites and based on a persistent parse tree ....

BEETEM, J. F. AND BEETEM, A. F. 1991. Incremental scanning and parsing with Galaxy. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 17, 7 (July), 641--651.

....formal language definitions, reuse existing language definitions in a familiar formalism, and provide maximum expressiveness and flexibility without compromising performance. Other approaches rely on extremely restrictive editing models or fail to be truly incremental. The Galaxy environment [Beetem and Beetem 1991] touches every token on any textual modification to the program. The Synthesizer Generator [Reps and Teitelbaum 1989] limits the user to a single outstanding edit, for which batch lexical analysis is employed to incorporate a textual modification. PSG [Bahlke and Snelting 1986] permits either ....

BEETEM, J. F. AND BEETEM, A. F. 1991. Incremental scanning and parsing with Galaxy. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 17, 7 (July), 641--651.

....Figure 5. Update the state information of re used subtrees. The incremental LL(1) parsing algorithm in Magpie [11] uses nonterminals, as well as terminals, as lookahead symbols. The incremental LL(1) parsing algorithm in [13] makes use of a break point table to identify reusable subtrees. Galaxy [4] uses a recursive decent technique to re parse the modified parse tree. It simply tries different alternatives when a rule does not match the input. The systems in [2, 9, 10] handle incremental changes to programs (mainly) with structure editors. Structure editors avoid the problem of incremental ....

J.F. Beetem and A.F. Beetem, Incremental scanning and parsing with Galaxy, IEEE Trans. Software Engineering 17(7) pp. 641-651 (July 1991).

....in a slightly modified string, using as much information as possible from the tokens in the original string. The look ahead problem also needs to be carefully considered in incremental lexical analysis. Incremental lexical analysis can be applied in incremental integrated programming environments [4]. In the next section, we identify the class of finite lookahead finite automata. An algorithm is proposed that determines whether an FA belongs to that class. The class of suffix FAs is defined in the third section. A technique is presented that transforms a finite lookahead FA into an equivalent ....

....When the two accepting states are deleted temporarily, no cycles exist in the resulting graph. Therefore, the DFA is an FFA. The dynamic programming steps are performed for i = 1, 2, and 3. The A i arrays are shown in Figure 2(c) The maximum number of lookahead symbols is the maximum of A 3 [4, 4], A 3 [4, 5] A 3 [5, 4] and A 3 [5, 5] which is 4. In this example, 4 is the length of the accepting to accepting path 5 2 3 1 5. This means the scanner needs to look ahead at most 4 symbols in order to detect the end of a token. For the string acabbb , the scanner needs to look ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Beetem, J.F. and Beetem, A.F., Incremental scanning and parsing with Galaxy, IEEE Trans. Software Engineering 17(7) pp. 641-651 (July 1991).

....scanners incrementally. Incremental generation of lexical analyzers is also discussed in [18] which did not address the lookahead problem. ALADIN [19] ignores the look ahead problem by adopting a multiple match rule, instead of the longest match rule. Incremental lexical analysis in Galaxy [20] did not take the look ahead problem into consideration; that algorithm is useful for languages that require at most 1 symbol look ahead. Our approach to the look ahead problem is similar in spirit to the string pattern matching algorithm of Knuth, Morris, and Pratt [21] Continuation from error ....

J.F. Beetem and A.F. Beetem, Incremental scanning and parsing with Galaxy, IEEE Trans. Software Engineering 17(7) pp. 641-651 (July 1991).

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