2 Nov 2003 14:44:33 -0500

Related articles |
---|

Grammar LR(1) but not LALR(1) jm@bourguet.org (Jean-Marc Bourguet) (2003-10-31) |

Re: Grammar LR(1) but not LALR(1) oliver@zeigermann.de (Oliver Zeigermann) (2003-11-02) |

Re: Grammar LR(1) but not LALR(1) cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2003-11-02) |

Re: Grammar LR(1) but not LALR(1) stefan@infoiasi.ro (ANDREI Stefan) (2003-11-08) |

Re: Grammar LR(1) but not LALR(1) jm@bourguet.org (Jean-Marc Bourguet) (2003-11-08) |

Re: Grammar LR(1) but not LALR(1) RLake@oxfam.org.uk (2003-11-11) |

From: | Oliver Zeigermann <oliver@zeigermann.de> |

Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |

Date: | 2 Nov 2003 14:44:33 -0500 |

Organization: | T-Online |

References: | 03-10-139 |

Keywords: | parse, LR(1), question |

Posted-Date: | 02 Nov 2003 14:44:33 EST |

If I understand this correctly it boils down to the question: If there

is an LR(1) grammar for a language, is there an LALR(1) grammar for the

same language as well? If I remember correctly, the simple answer is

"yes" (can not find it the literature, though). The long answer is there

is no known algorithm that does so in all possible cases, but you will

hava to do it by hand.

Experts, any pointer to this stuff in the literature? Or am I wrong?

Oliver

*> I'm convinced that such a transformation (contructing an LALR(1)*

*> grammar by duplicating productions) is possible for every LR(1)*

*> grammars, such duplication preventing the merge of the states LR(1)*

*> automaton.*

Post a followup to this message

Return to the
comp.compilers page.

Search the
comp.compilers archives again.