|power of SLR firstname.lastname@example.org (Thant Tessman) (2001-09-16)|
|Re: power of SLR email@example.com (J.H.Jongejan) (2001-09-20)|
|Re: power of SLR firstname.lastname@example.org (Thant Tessman) (2001-09-20)|
|Re: power of SLR email@example.com (Ben Pfaff) (2001-09-25)|
|From:||Thant Tessman <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||20 Sep 2001 00:27:51 -0400|
|Posted-Date:||20 Sep 2001 00:27:51 EDT|
[...typical pedagogical grammar example...]
> Is SLR really that weak? or do I have a bug in my implementation?
I was kindly informed that the grammar was indeed SLR. Upon further
investigation, it seems that there was a bug in the 'follow'
function--or rather, there is something I don't understand about what it
is supposed to do. The '*' token was included in my version of
'follow(E)' when according to the example 4.38 of Aho,Sethi,Ullman, it
should only include ')', '+', and '$' (end of input).
I deliberately modified my follow algorithm to get it to include the '*'
token (which I really thought was supposed to be there). Removing the
modification seems to have fixed my parser generator. Still a little
fuzzy on the issue.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.