Re: Bison and LR(1) Parsers

[Tim Josling]

I want to finish the current phase of my compiler before doing
anything to bison. This will be in a couple of months eg
September/October. I am very confident that full LR(1) would
satisfy my needs. The Fortest approach does implement full LR(1)
function, though in a new way. The question is whether the Fortes
approach is best, or whether standard LR(1) would be best.

If someone implements the Fortes approach in a reasonable time, I
would use that, otherwise I would propose to write vanilla LR(1)
functionality. If the Fortes approach has not been done by
Septembet/October I will be looking to add LR(1) to bison. At
that time I would be asking for an indication that a patch to do
that would be acceptable in principle.

Tim Josling

Akim Demaille wrote:

> Tim> All your comments make sense. I am just about to go off and get a
> Tim> copy fo the Fortes paper. I did a search and he doesn't seem to
> Tim> have patented it though there are patents in the LR parser space,
> Tim> notably from IBM.
> 
> Tim> I will await an official verdict before writing anything.
> 
> I personally have no idea whether the new technology which have been
> proposed for Bison would satisfy your needs.  That's probably what
> first needs to be checked.
> 
> I start to think that CVS branch might be a good approach to Bison's
> development.  But I hate them :)
>