|LL(1)/Recursive Descent Parsing Question firstname.lastname@example.org (2002-03-19)|
|Re: LL(1)/Recursive Descent Parsing Question email@example.com (jacob navia) (2002-03-21)|
|Re: LL(1)/Recursive Descent Parsing Question firstname.lastname@example.org (Peter H. Froehlich) (2002-03-21)|
|Re: LL(1)/Recursive Descent Parsing Question email@example.com (Joachim Durchholz) (2002-03-22)|
|Re: LL(1)/Recursive Descent Parsing Question firstname.lastname@example.org (SLK Parsers) (2002-03-25)|
|From:||Joachim Durchholz <email@example.com>|
|Date:||22 Mar 2002 21:02:37 -0500|
|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.)
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.