Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jarthur!uci-ics!rfg
From: rfg@ics.uci.edu (Ronald Guilmette)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: yaccable grammars for C and C++: 1 of 4
Message-ID: <26073B38.11535@paris.ics.uci.edu>
Date: 21 Mar 90 08:28:40 GMT
References: <1432@io.UUCP>
Reply-To: rfg@ics.uci.edu (Ronald Guilmette)
Organization: UC Irvine Department of ICS
Lines: 25

In article <1432@io.UUCP> jar@io.UUCP (Jim Roskind x5570) writes:
>
>In light of the recent debate on comp.lang.c++ about the
>"impossibility" of generating a YACC grammar for C++ (that doesn't
>also accept every possible string of tokens), providing these
>grammars at this point is especially nice.  Rather than addressing
>each of the ad hoc arguments that such an endeavor is impossible (the
>least convincing of which said effectively: "... heard it was
>impossible, ... something about LALR ...", and the most correct of
>which said: "...it is not possible to create a simple YACC grammar
>for C++.."), I am offering my grammars as my rather complete
>commentary on the topic. (I'll probably get some flaming due to this
>comment, but I had to read all the stuff that was posted, that told
>me what I had done was impossible. ;-) )  My general feeling is that
>it is a shame for opinions to be confused with facts, and for
>impossibility to be confused with difficulty or complexity.

I wish I had said that!

Thanks Jim.


// Ron Guilmette (rfg@ics.uci.edu)
// C++ Entomologist
// Motto:  If it sticks, force it.  If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.