Intuiting Pratt Parsing
by signa11 on 3/30/2026, 12:31:52 PM
https://louis.co.nz/2026/03/26/pratt-parsing.html
Comments
by: logdahl
Love Pratt parsing! Not a compiler guy, but I've spent way too many hours reflecting on parsing. I remember trying to get though the dragon book so many times and reading all about formal grammar etc. Until I landed on; recursive descent parsing + Pratt for expressions. Super simple technique, and for me is sufficient. I'm sure it doesn't cover all cases, but just for toy languages it feels like we can usually do everything with 2-token lookahead.<p>Not to step on anyone's toes, I just don't feel that formal grammar theory is that important in practice. :^)
4/1/2026, 10:58:26 AM
by: svat
> <i>I’ve read many articles on the same topic but never found it presented this way - hopefully N + 1 is of help to someone.</i><p>Can confirm; yes it was helpful! I've never thought seriously about parsing and I've read occasionally (casually) about Pratt parsing, but this is the first time it seemed like an intuitive idea I'll remember.<p>(Then I confused myself by following some references and remembering the term "precedence climbing" and reading e.g. <a href="https://www.engr.mun.ca/~theo/Misc/pratt_parsing.htm" rel="nofollow">https://www.engr.mun.ca/~theo/Misc/pratt_parsing.htm</a> by the person who coined that term, but nevermind — the original post here has still given me an idea I think I'll remember.)
4/1/2026, 12:17:52 PM
by: randomNumber7
I can recommend anyone reading pratts original paper. Its written in a very cool and badass style.<p><a href="https://dl.acm.org/doi/epdf/10.1145/512927.512931" rel="nofollow">https://dl.acm.org/doi/epdf/10.1145/512927.512931</a>
4/1/2026, 11:43:35 AM
by: hyperhello
You can either use the stack in an intuitive way, or you can change the tree directly in a somewhat less intuitive way without recursion. Essentially either DF or BF. I don’t see how it matters much anymore with stacks that grow automatically, but it’s good to understand.
4/1/2026, 12:05:30 PM
by: priceishere
An even simpler way imo, is explicit functions instead of a precedence table, then the code pretty much has the same structure as EBNF.<p>Need to parse * before +? Begin at add, have it call parse_mul for its left and right sides, and so on.<p><pre><code> parse_mul() { left = parse_literal() while(is_mul_token()) { // left associative right = parse_literal() make_mul_node(left, right) } } parse_add() { left = parse_mul() while(is_add_token()) { // left associative right = parse_mul() make_add_node(left, right) } } </code></pre> Then just add more functions as you climb up the precedence levels.
4/1/2026, 11:24:38 AM