LR Grammars not in LALR(1) or LR(1)

"tj bandrowsky" <tbandrow@unitedsoftworks.com>
3 Sep 2002 00:23:58 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
LR Grammars not in LALR(1) or LR(1) tbandrow@unitedsoftworks.com (tj bandrowsky) (2002-09-03)
Re: LR Grammars not in LALR(1) or LR(1) haberg@matematik.su.se (Hans Aberg) (2002-09-08)
Re: LR Grammars not in LALR(1) or LR(1) idbaxter@semdesigns.com (Ira Baxter) (2002-09-08)
Re: LR Grammars not in LALR(1) or LR(1) tbandrow@unitedsoftworks.com (tj bandrowsky) (2002-09-12)
Re: LR Grammars not in LALR(1) or LR(1) tbandrow@unitedsoftworks.com (tj bandrowsky) (2002-09-12)
Re: LR Grammars not in LALR(1) or LR(1) haberg@matematik.su.se (Hans Aberg) (2002-09-12)
Re: LR Grammars not in LALR(1) or LR(1) soenke.kannapinn@wincor-nixdorf.com (=?Windows-1252?Q?S=F6nke_Kannapinn?=) (2002-09-14)
[15 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
From: "tj bandrowsky" <tbandrow@unitedsoftworks.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 3 Sep 2002 00:23:58 -0400
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Keywords: parse, question
Posted-Date: 03 Sep 2002 00:23:58 EDT

Are there examples of grammars that are GLR but not LR(1) or LALR(1)?

I have added meaningful error detection, fixed up some theoretical
mistakes, I am looking to see if I can credibly claim that Diplodicus
is a general LR parser. I would like to know how I can **prove
that**, particularly in a rigourous way.

It seems to me being able to correctly parse a grammar that can only
be parsed by GLR would at least add some rhetorical help to that case,
so examples of correctly parsing GLR grammars would be particularly
helpful. Is C++ with templates GLR?

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.