3 Sep 2002 00:23:58 -0400

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] |

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.