Xref: utzoo comp.compilers:1692 comp.lang.misc:6590
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!decwrl!deccrl!news.crl.dec.com!decvax.dec.com!ima!iecc!compilers-sender
From: plains!umn-cs!LOCAL!thornley@uunet.UU.NET (David H. Thornley)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers,comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Wanted: YACC grammar for COBOL
Keywords: Cobol, parse, yacc, question
Message-ID: <1991Jan24.013319.2919@cs.umn.edu>
Date: 24 Jan 91 01:33:19 GMT
References: <1991Jan22.142741.6471@informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
Sender: compilers-sender@iecc.cambridge.ma.us
Reply-To: plains!umn-cs!LOCAL!thornley@uunet.UU.NET (David H. Thornley)
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
Lines: 17
Approved: compilers@iecc.cambridge.ma.us

In article <1991Jan22.142741.6471@informatik.uni-erlangen.de> zanzinge@immd2.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (M. Zanzinger) writes:
>Does anyone know of a LEX/YACC definition for COBOL?

Can you do a LEX/YACC grammar for COBOL?  I never tried it, but some
parts of it (like expressions) looked real weird to me.  In other words,
is it LALR(0)?

Former COBOL hacker,

DHT
[I know of no particular reason why it'd be difficult to parse Cobol.  It
doesn't look very ambiguous.  On the other hand, I haven't actually tried
to write a parser for it. By the way, LALR is a large subset of LR(1), it
does look ahead a token. -John]
-- 
Send compilers articles to compilers@iecc.cambridge.ma.us or
{ima | spdcc | world}!iecc!compilers.  Meta-mail to compilers-request.