6 Oct 2003 21:23:19 -0400

Related articles |
---|

Comparative studies of Generalized LR and LL parsing? noemails@replyToTheGroup.nospam.org (Kunle Odutola) (2003-10-04) |

Re: Comparative studies of Generalized LR and LL parsing? daw@mozart.cs.berkeley.edu (2003-10-06) |

Re: Comparative studies of Generalized LR and LL parsing? haberg@matematik.su.se (2003-10-06) |

Re: Comparative studies of Generalized LR and LL parsing? cfc@world.std.com (Chris F Clark) (2003-10-06) |

Re: Comparative studies of Generalized LR and LL parsing? oliver@zeigermann.de (Oliver Zeigermann) (2003-10-27) |

From: | daw@mozart.cs.berkeley.edu (David Wagner) |

Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |

Date: | 6 Oct 2003 21:23:19 -0400 |

Organization: | University of California, Berkeley |

References: | 03-10-016 |

Keywords: | parse, theory |

Posted-Date: | 06 Oct 2003 21:23:19 EDT |

Kunle Odutola wrote:

*>There has been a steady increase in the numbers of references to (and*

*>implementations of) "Generalized LR" or GLR parsing but virtually none*

*>for "Generalized LL" or GLL parsing. I'm left wondering if this is*

*>just a reflection of the original decision to bundle YACC with Unix.*

Most of the algorithms for GLR parsing are really algorithms for

generalized recognition of context free languages given any

(non-deterministic) pushdown automata for the language. So, yes, the

methods all extend naturally to GLL parsing as well.

For instance, Tomita parsing is really a method for efficiently

testing, given a string S and a non-deterministic pushdown automaton

P, whether P accepts S. Most of the examples of Tomita's method

assume that P is constructed as a LR(1) automaton, but there is no

reason this has to be the case.

Post a followup to this message

Return to the
comp.compilers page.

Search the
comp.compilers archives again.