Re: Are lalr parse-tables viable?

"craig" <craig@small-pla.net>
25 Jun 2004 01:51:03 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Are lalr parse-tables viable? craig@small-pla.net (craig) (2004-06-11)
Re: Are lalr parse-tables viable? torbenm@diku.dk (2004-06-12)
Re: Are lalr parse-tables viable? adrian@sartre.cs.rhbnc.ac.uk (A Johnstone) (2004-06-13)
Re: Are lalr parse-tables viable? cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2004-06-13)
Re: Are lalr parse-tables viable? craig@small-pla.net (craig) (2004-06-21)
Re: Are lalr parse-tables viable? craig@small-pla.net (craig) (2004-06-25)
Re: Are lalr parse-tables viable? cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2004-06-28)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: "craig" <craig@small-pla.net>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 25 Jun 2004 01:51:03 -0400
Organization: 1&1 Internet AG
References: 04-06-038 04-06-055
Keywords: LALR, parse
Posted-Date: 25 Jun 2004 01:51:03 EDT

Hi Chris,


I'Ve Been Puzzling Over Your Comment About The Transitions Per State Count:


> (that's more than 400 transitions per state, so I'm a little
> concerned there, but > not much).


My Analyzer Generated 327 Unique States And 16258 Transitions Between
These. 16258 / 327 ~= 50 Transitions Per State.


Is This Right Or I'Ve Missed Something?


Much Thanks

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.