|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? email@example.com (2003-10-06)|
|Re: Comparative studies of Generalized LR and LL parsing? firstname.lastname@example.org (2003-10-06)|
|Re: Comparative studies of Generalized LR and LL parsing? email@example.com (Chris F Clark) (2003-10-06)|
|Re: Comparative studies of Generalized LR and LL parsing? firstname.lastname@example.org (Oliver Zeigermann) (2003-10-27)|
|From:||email@example.com (David Wagner)|
|Date:||6 Oct 2003 21:23:19 -0400|
|Organization:||University of California, Berkeley|
|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.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.