>Yacc is OK if you actually have an LR(1) grammar. But its best to
>steer well clear of it otherwise. In addition error handling was
>never really though out properly for yacc. I've never seen anyone
>sucessfully use the error productions without comming a cropper.
Quite! yacc error productions fall into the "black art" category at
the very least.
>I think the problem lies in comp sci classes being taught that bottom
>up parsing is `better' and the students not asking why. Goldfarb
>would not know an LR(1) grammar if one bit him on the nose. If he had
>SGML might not fall into the "much wailing and gnashing of teeth"
>catogory which it does.
Well, the other thing is that many people perceive writing a recursive
descent parser to be harder than writing a YACC grammar
description. I'm not sure this is true. I'll be perfectly honest and
say that over the last 10 years, less than a third of the parsers I've
written used YACC (though flex is a godsend, at least for
prototyping). I saw one interesting parser concept which used "event
handlers" to create a very loosely coupled FSM. Quite interesting, and
very fast too.
>PS: I have discovered that the correct pronunciation of "ASN.1" is
Or perhaps asinine ;-)