Analysing the SML97 Definition: Lexicalisation

Authors Elizabeth Scott , Adrian Johnstone



PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

OASIcs.EVCS.2023.23.pdf
  • Filesize: 0.61 MB
  • 12 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Elizabeth Scott
  • Department of Computer Science, Royal Holloway, University of London, UK
Adrian Johnstone
  • Department of Computer Science, Royal Holloway, University of London, UK

Cite As Get BibTex

Elizabeth Scott and Adrian Johnstone. Analysing the SML97 Definition: Lexicalisation. In Eelco Visser Commemorative Symposium (EVCS 2023). Open Access Series in Informatics (OASIcs), Volume 109, pp. 23:1-23:12, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2023) https://doi.org/10.4230/OASIcs.EVCS.2023.23

Abstract

The specification of the syntax and semantics for Standard ML have been designed to support the generation of a compiler front end, but actual implementations have required significant modification to the specification. Since the specification was written there have been major advances in the development of language analysis systems that can handle general syntax specifications. We are revisiting the SML specification to consider to what extent, using modern tooling, it can be implemented exactly as originally written. In this short paper we focus on the lexical specification.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Software and its engineering → Software notations and tools
Keywords
  • SML
  • language specification
  • lexicalisation
  • parsing
  • ambiguity

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads

References

  1. Alfred V. Aho, Monica S. Lam, Ravi Sethi, and Jeffrey D. Ullman. Compilers: principles, techniques, and tools, 2nd edition. Addison-Wesley, 2006. Google Scholar
  2. John Aycock and R. Nigel Horspool. Schrodinger’s token. Software: practice and experience, 31:803-814, 2001. Google Scholar
  3. Sylvie Billot and Bernard Lang. The structure of shared forests in ambiguous parsing. In Proceedings of the 27th conference on Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 143-151. Association for Computational Linguistics, 1989. Google Scholar
  4. Claus Brabrand, Robert Giegerich, and Anders Møller. Analyzing ambiguity of context-free grammars. Science of Computer Programming, 75(3):176-191, March 2010. Earlier version in Proc. 12th International Conference on Implementation and Application of Automata, CIAA '07, Springer-Verlag LNCS vol. 4783. Google Scholar
  5. Giorgios Economopolous, Paul Klint, and Jurgen J. Vinju. Faster scannerless GLR parsering. In CC'09, volume 5501 of Lect. Notes Comput. Sci., pages 126-141. Springer, 2009. Google Scholar
  6. Adrian Johnstone and Elizabeth Scott. Translator generation using ART. In M.van den Brand B.Malloy, S.Staab, editor, SLE 2010, volume 6563 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 306-315. Springer-Verlag, 2011. Google Scholar
  7. Stefan Kahrs. Mistakes and ambiguities in the definition of Standard ML. Technical report, University of Edinburgh, Technical Report ECS-LFCS-93-257, 1994. Google Scholar
  8. Robin Milner, Mads Tofte, Robert Harper, and David MacQueen. The Definition of Standard ML (Revised). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1997. Google Scholar
  9. Andreas Rossberg. Defects in the revised definition of Standard ML. https://people.mpi-sws.org/~rossberg/papers/sml-defects-2013-09-18.pdf, 2013.
  10. Andreas Rossberg. Hamlet; SML reference interpreter. https://people.mpi-sws.org/~rossberg/hamlet/, 2013.
  11. Elizabeth Scott and Adrian Johnstone. Multiple lexicalisation - A Java based case study. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Software Language Engineering, SLE'19. ACM, 2019. Google Scholar
  12. Masaru Tomita. Generalized LR parsing. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1991. Google Scholar
  13. M.G.J. van den Brand, J. Heering, P. Klint, and P.A. Olivier. Compiling language definitions: the ASF+SDF compiler. ACM TOPLAS, 24(4):334-368, 2002. Google Scholar
  14. Eelco Visser. Scannerless generalised-LR parsing. Technical Report P9707, University of Amsterdam, 1997. Google Scholar
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail