|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? firstname.lastname@example.org (2003-10-06)|
|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 (Chris F Clark) (2003-10-06)|
|Re: Comparative studies of Generalized LR and LL parsing? email@example.com (Oliver Zeigermann) (2003-10-27)|
|From:||firstname.lastname@example.org (Hans Aberg)|
|Date:||6 Oct 2003 21:28:59 -0400|
|Keywords:||parse, LL(1), LR(1)|
|Posted-Date:||06 Oct 2003 21:28:59 EDT|
"Kunle Odutola" <noemails@replyToTheGroup.nospam.org> 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.
>Is there such a thing as "Generalized LL" parsing and, have there been
>any useful comparisons of "Generalized LR" and "Generalized LL"
The word "generalized" merely means that if the the parser cannot
parse according to the parsing algorithm, it is split to examine all
parsing possibilities. So you should be able to have a "generalized X"
for any parsing algorithm X.
I think that nondeterministic parsing is treated in the Parsing Techniques
The GNU Bison parser generator nowadays has a GLR parser.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.