|parsing theory dubts firstname.lastname@example.org (Davide Rizzo) (2003-03-30)|
|Re: parsing theory dubts email@example.com (2003-03-30)|
|From:||firstname.lastname@example.org (Hans Aberg)|
|Date:||30 Mar 2003 21:19:22 -0500|
|Posted-Date:||30 Mar 2003 21:19:22 EST|
"Davide Rizzo" <email@example.com> wrote:
>[... LALR is a superset of LL. ... -John]
Thise is not entirely true. Here is a quote from Akim Demaille in the Help
Bison list 2002/01/17:
This is not absolutely true, although it is in practice. IIRC the
result holds when there are no empty rules. See for instance
or the errata of Andrew Appel about this book on compiler
Page 64. Figure 3.26 incorrectly shows LL(1) as a subset of
SLR. In fact, LL(1) is not even a subset of LALR(1): there is
an LL(1) grammar that is not LALR(1).
Hans Aberg * Anti-spam: remove "remove." from email address.
* Email: Hans Aberg <firstname.lastname@example.org>
* Home Page: <http://www.math.su.se/~haberg/>
* AMS member listing: <http://www.ams.org/cml/>
[Oh, right. Oops. -John]
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.