parsing

(redirected from Parser generators)
Also found in: Encyclopedia.

parse

 (pärs)
v. parsed, pars·ing, pars·es
v.tr.
1.
a. To break (a sentence) down into its component parts of speech with an explanation of the form, function, and syntactical relationship of each part.
b. To describe (a word) by stating its part of speech, form, and syntactical relationships in a sentence.
c. To process (linguistic data such as speech or written language) in real time as it is being spoken or read, in order to determine its linguistic structure and meaning.
2.
a. To examine closely or subject to detailed analysis, especially by breaking up into components: "What are we missing by parsing the behavior of chimpanzees into the conventional categories recognized largely from our own behavior?" (Stephen Jay Gould).
b. To make sense of; comprehend: I simply couldn't parse what you just said.
3. Computers To analyze or separate (input, for example) into more easily processed components.
v.intr.
To admit of being parsed: sentences that do not parse easily.

[Probably from Middle English pars, part of speech, from Latin pars (ōrātiōnis), part (of speech); see perə- in Indo-European roots.]

pars′er n.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
Translations

parsing

[ˈpɑːzɪŋ] Nanálisis m inv sintáctico or gramatical
Collins Spanish Dictionary - Complete and Unabridged 8th Edition 2005 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1971, 1988 © HarperCollins Publishers 1992, 1993, 1996, 1997, 2000, 2003, 2005

parsing

n (Gram) → Syntaxanalyse f; (Comput) → Parsing nt
Collins German Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged 7th Edition 2005. © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1980 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1997, 1999, 2004, 2005, 2007
References in periodicals archive ?
Also, several LR parser generators are readily available, most notably Yacc [Johnson 1975] which creates LALR parsers.
Compared to real-world parser generators, the performance of the generated parsers is competitive.
Many popular parser generators such as Yacc [Johnson 1975] restrict themselves to S-attributed grammars where all attributes can be evaluated "on-the-fly" during parsing.
With both the direct-style and the continuation-based implementation models, the generated LR parsers compare favorably with those generated by traditionally built parser generators such as Bison [Donnelly and Stallman 1995] as well as those produced by the partial evaluation of a stack-based implementation presented by Mossin [1993].
Pagan [1991] describes, among other examples for partial computation, the construction of LL and LR parser generators. However, his approach is rather adhoc, and the generation of the parser generators is not automatic but done by hand.
Many parser generators accept ambiguous grammars in combination with additional specifications (e.g., operator precedence and default conflict resolution rules).(3) These techniques provide notational convenience and often result in significantly smaller parse trees, especially in languages like C that are terse and expression dense.
Lossy compression of the terminal reduction actions and the invalid reductions permitted by other parser classes (LALR(1), SLR(1)) limit validation to shifts of non-[Epsilon]-subtrees.(15) However, if an LALR or SLR parser generator identifies reductions guaranteed never to be erroneous, reduction validation can be employed on a case-by-case basis.
First, the set of directly ambiguous productions can be output by the parser generator: these are the productions that appear in any state (item set) containing a conflict, and any node representing an instance of a production in this list is fragile.
Although the techniques of earlier sections always produce correct incremental parsers for any grammar accepted by the parser generator, the choice among grammars accepting the same language matters greatly for the sake of incremental performance.
Two of the most popular are LEX [11], a scanner generator that accepts regular expressions and produces a table-driven recognizer, and Yacc [8], an LALR(1) parser generator. Both of these tools are used principally for phototyping and for the generation of special-purpose processors, but are viewed by many as being too slow [11] or not providing adequate error recovery [8] to be used in a production environment.
The scanner generator and the parser generator each require a list of the basic symbols of the source language.