|Reduce/reduce conflicts on A -> e (empty) productions email@example.com (Chuck Batson) (2004-06-06)|
|Re: Reduce/reduce conflicts on A -> e (empty) productions firstname.lastname@example.org (Chuck Batson) (2004-06-09)|
|Re: Reduce/reduce conflicts on A -> e (empty) productions cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2004-06-09)|
|Re: Reduce/reduce conflicts on A -> e (empty) productions email@example.com (Hans Aberg) (2004-06-15)|
|From:||"Chuck Batson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||9 Jun 2004 00:26:09 -0400|
|Posted-Date:||09 Jun 2004 00:26:09 EDT|
> 1) S -> 'Q' foo 'R'
> 2) foo -> empty1 empty2
> 3) empty1 ->
> 4) empty2 ->
> According to the dragon book's definition, kernel item [S -> 'Q' . foo
> 'R', b] results in a reduce/reduce conflict on input 'R', since a
> reduction by both productions 3 and 4 are called for as foo => empty1,
> foo => empty2 (again "=>" implies zero or more steps), and 'R' is in
> FIRST(svb) for both cases. How should this conflict be resolved?
I believe I have found my flaw. While it's true foo derives empty2 (in
zero or more steps), it is NOT true that foo *right-most* derives
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.