|Verification that a CFL is LL(1) / SLR firstname.lastname@example.org (Avi Tal) (2000-04-01)|
|Re: Verification that a CFL is LL(1) / SLR email@example.com (2000-04-03)|
|Re: Verification that a CFL is LL(1) / SLR firstname.lastname@example.org (Charles E. Bortle, Jr.) (2000-04-05)|
|From:||"Charles E. Bortle, Jr." <email@example.com>|
|Date:||5 Apr 2000 22:23:40 -0400|
> Write a grammar for your language. Use the standard LL(1) and SLR
> parse-table constructions. If you succeed with no conflicts, this is a
> proof that your grammar, and hence your language, is LL(1) / SLR.
> Note that this is not a decision procedure: Some grammars for LL(1) or
> SLR languages may not themselves be LL(1) or SLR. AFAIK, there is no
> sure way to decide if a grammar has an equivalent LL(1) or SLR
> grammar, and hence if the language is LL(1) or SLR.
Also, for some grammars, for example for the Pascal dangeling else,
the grammar may not be LL(1) but if you structure it and the parser
driver correctly, the correct rule with be taken anyway, so it becomes
a somewhat academic issue.
* http://pw2.netcom.com/~cbrtjr/wrdthing.html *
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.