|Definition of a regular grammar firstname.lastname@example.org (Colin Manning) (2002-03-09)|
|Re: Definition of a regular grammar email@example.com.OZ.AU (Peter Gammie) (2002-03-11)|
|Re: Definition of a regular grammar firstname.lastname@example.org (ANDREI Stefan) (2002-03-11)|
|Re: Definition of a regular grammar email@example.com (2002-03-11)|
|Re: Definition of a regular grammar firstname.lastname@example.org (2002-03-11)|
|Re: Definition of a regular grammar email@example.com (Peter H. Froehlich) (2002-03-17)|
|From:||Peter Gammie <firstname.lastname@example.org.OZ.AU>|
|Date:||11 Mar 2002 02:07:51 -0500|
|Posted-Date:||11 Mar 2002 02:07:51 EST|
On 9 Mar 2002, Colin Manning wrote:
> I had always assumed that any grammar (Type 3) that contained only
> productions of the form
> had to be regular.
I think you'll find that either left recursion or right recursion (your
second and first rules respectively) alone gives the regular languages -
having both gives you the context free languages.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.