[bison.git] / REFERENCES

From phr Tue Jul  8 10:36:19 1986
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 86 00:52:24 EDT
From: phr (Paul Rubin)
To: riferguson%watmath.waterloo.edu@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA, tower
Subject: Re:  Bison documentation?

The main difference between Bison and Yacc that I know of is that
Bison supports the @N construction, which gives you access to
the starting and ending line number and character number associated
with any of the symbols in the current rule.

Also, Bison supports the command `%expect N' which says not to mention
the conflicts if there are N shift/reduce conflicts and no reduce/reduce
conflicts.

The differences in the algorithms stem mainly from the horrible
kludges that Johnson had to perpetrate to make Yacc fit in a PDP-11.

Also, Bison uses a faster but less space-efficient encoding for the
parse tables (see Corbett's PhD thesis from Berkeley, "Static
Semantics in Compiler Error Recovery", June 1985, Report No. UCB/CSD
85/251), and more modern technique for generating the lookahead sets.
(See "Efficient Construction of LALR(1) Lookahead Sets" by F. DeRemer
and A. Pennello, in ACM TOPLS Vol 4 No 4, October 1982.  Their
technique is the standard one now.)

	paul rubin
	free software foundation
Commit	Line	Data
07f68b11 RS	1	From phr Tue Jul 8 10:36:19 1986
	2	Date: Tue, 8 Jul 86 00:52:24 EDT
	3	From: phr (Paul Rubin)
	4	To: riferguson%watmath.waterloo.edu@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA, tower
	5	Subject: Re: Bison documentation?
	6
	7	The main difference between Bison and Yacc that I know of is that
	8	Bison supports the @N construction, which gives you access to
	9	the starting and ending line number and character number associated
	10	with any of the symbols in the current rule.
	11
	12	Also, Bison supports the command `%expect N' which says not to mention
	13	the conflicts if there are N shift/reduce conflicts and no reduce/reduce
	14	conflicts.
	15
	16	The differences in the algorithms stem mainly from the horrible
	17	kludges that Johnson had to perpetrate to make Yacc fit in a PDP-11.
	18
	19	Also, Bison uses a faster but less space-efficient encoding for the
	20	parse tables (see Corbett's PhD thesis from Berkeley, "Static
	21	Semantics in Compiler Error Recovery", June 1985, Report No. UCB/CSD
	22	85/251), and more modern technique for generating the lookahead sets.
	23	(See "Efficient Construction of LALR(1) Lookahead Sets" by F. DeRemer
	24	and A. Pennello, in ACM TOPLS Vol 4 No 4, October 1982. Their
	25	technique is the standard one now.)
	26
	27	paul rubin
	28	free software foundation
	29
	30