c++ code completion status report

[Eray Ozkural (exa)]

On Saturday 05 January 2002 03:05, Richard Dale wrote:
> On Friday 04 January 2002 7:11 pm, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
> > No, the best method is an incremental parser, which is beyond the
> > capabilities of our middle-level imperative implementation language, of
> > course unless we have a clever coder who can devote the rest of his life
> > to implement an incremental LALR parser + type semantics.
>
> Yes, so many grammars, so little time, but I feel LL(k) is king for
> convenience in this case. Backspace becomes 'backtrack'..
>

I wouldn't think a recursive descent parser could be used for anything 
serious, though you said LL(k) rather than LL(1) which should make it 
powerful enough. But it's still less capable than LR(k), no? Nah, I just woke 
up, not in my parsing theory mood.

You mean that it's easier to implement a lazy recursive descent parser? I 
don't know any such code, but even if there was it wouldn't be too easy to 
use in a C/C++ framework. For this code, there are type structures somewhere 
and whenever I press a key the lazy parser does a chunk of work to update 
those structures. I can imagine perfectly how this could be done in a lazy 
functional language, but in C++ it would be so hackish that it would be most 
fearful maze ever contrived in KDE code.

Thanks,

-- 
Eray Ozkural (exa) <erayo at cs.bilkent.edu.tr>
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo
GPG public key fingerprint: 360C 852F 88B0 A745 F31B  EA0F 7C07 AE16 874D 539C