22 Mar 2002 21:02:37 -0500

Related articles |
---|

LL(1)/Recursive Descent Parsing Question neelk@alum.mit.edu (2002-03-19) |

Re: LL(1)/Recursive Descent Parsing Question jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr (jacob navia) (2002-03-21) |

Re: LL(1)/Recursive Descent Parsing Question pfroehli@ics.uci.edu (Peter H. Froehlich) (2002-03-21) |

Re: LL(1)/Recursive Descent Parsing Question joachim_d@gmx.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2002-03-22) |

Re: LL(1)/Recursive Descent Parsing Question dr_feriozi@prodigy.net (SLK Parsers) (2002-03-25) |

From: | Joachim Durchholz <joachim_d@gmx.de> |

Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |

Date: | 22 Mar 2002 21:02:37 -0500 |

Organization: | Compilers Central |

References: | 02-03-106 02-03-129 |

Keywords: | parse, theory |

Posted-Date: | 22 Mar 2002 21:02:37 EST |

Peter H. Froehlich wrote:

*> I have to admit that a tool that takes any grammar and then spits*

*> out whether it is in one or the other class would be nice, but I*

*> would guess the problem is undecidable. Insights, anybody?*

It's far from undecidable, it's trivial.

Basically, all you have to do is to feed the grammar to the various

parser generators and see which of them spit out errors. (You could

rewrite the checker part of the parser generators to streamline the

process, of course.)

Regards,

Joachim

Post a followup to this message

Return to the
comp.compilers page.

Search the
comp.compilers archives again.