S - Intranet - Department of Computer Science: Login

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Since then C# has got the following features • C# 2.0 features: – Generics – Structured Value Types – First class anonymous functions (called delegates) • C# 3.0 features: – Implicitly Typed Local Variables – Lambda Expressions – Anonymous Types – Expression Trees – Query Expressions – Extension Methods – Object Initializers – Collection Initializers – Iterators – Lazy streams – Nullable value types • C# 4.0 features – Dynamic Lookup • A new static type called: dynamic • No static typing <strong>of</strong> operations with dynamic • Exceptions on invalid usage at runtime dynamic d = GetDynamicObject(…); d.M(7); // calling methods d.f= d.P; // get/se fields and properties d[“one”] = d[“two”]; // thorughindexers Int i= d + 3; // calling operators string s = d(5,7); // invoking as a delegate – Optional and Named Parameters – COM interop features – Co-and Contra-variance 80
Programming Language Design • The Art – The creative process • The <strong>Science</strong> – Theoretical and experimental results showing what is possible • Tokens can be described by RE and implemented by DFA • LL Parsing can be implemented by Recursive Decent • LR Parsing can be implemented using a table driven Push Down automaton • The Engineering – The putting it all together in a sensible way, I.e. • Choosing which parsing strategy to use (LL vs. LALR) • Implementing by hand or via tool • Choosing good data-structure 81
Page 1 and 2:
Languages and Compilers (SProg og O
Page 3 and 4:
Adding Actions by hand options { LO
Page 5 and 6:
Attribute Grammars • Example: exp
Page 7 and 8:
Attribute Grammars .expected_type
Page 9 and 10:
Attribute Grammars • Let X 0 →
Page 11 and 12:
Attribute Grammars and Practice •
Page 13 and 14:
Back to Parsers - let us look at LR
Page 15 and 16:
Hierarchy 15
Page 17 and 18:
Bottom Up Parsers • Harder to imp
Page 19 and 20:
Fundamental idea • Read through e
Page 21 and 22:
Right derivations Sentence ::= Subj
Page 23 and 24:
Bottom Up Parsers • All bottom up
Page 25 and 26:
Model of an LR parser: stack sm xm
Page 27 and 28:
The parse table • For every state
Page 29 and 30: Example - parse table ( ) $ S' S 0
Page 31 and 32: The resultat • Read the productio
Page 33 and 34: LR(0)-items Item : A production wit
Page 35 and 36: Goto(I,X) Describes the X-transitio
Page 37 and 38: LR(0)-parse table • state I with
Page 39 and 40: Shift-reduce-conflicts ( ) $ S' S 0
Page 41 and 42: Parser Conflict Resolution Most pro
Page 43 and 44: Parser Conflict Resolution Example:
Page 45 and 46: Parser Conflict Resolution Example:
Page 47 and 48: LR(0) vs. SLR • LR(0) - here we d
Page 49 and 50: LR(1) • Items are now pairs (A→
Page 51 and 52: Example 0: S' → S$ 1: S → V=E 2
Page 53 and 54: LR(1)-parse table x * = $ S E V x *
Page 55 and 56: LALR(1)-parse-table x * = $ S E V 1
Page 57 and 58: Enough background! • All of this
Page 59 and 60: JavaCUP: A LALR generator for Java
Page 61 and 62: Java Cup Specification Structure ja
Page 63 and 64: Ambiguous Grammar Error • If we e
Page 65 and 66: Change the calc.cup terminal PLUS,
Page 67 and 68: Steps to build a compiler with Sabl
Page 69 and 70: SableCC output • The lexer packag
Page 71 and 72: Syntax Tree Classes for Prog For ea
Page 73 and 74: A SableCC Grammar with transformati
Page 75 and 76: A SableCC Grammar with transformati
Page 77 and 78: Advantages of SableCC • Automatic
Page 79: Now let’s talk a bit about progra
show all

S - Intranet - Department of Computer Science: Login

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?