|Grammars for LL(1) grammars? email@example.com (LasseHillerĝePetersen) (2004-05-24)|
|Re: Grammars for LL(1) grammars? firstname.lastname@example.org (Lasse =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hiller=F8e?= Petersen) (2004-07-13)|
|van Wijngaarden Grammars, Was: Grammars for LL(1) grammars? email@example.com (2004-07-14)|
|Re: van Wijngaarden Grammars, Was: Grammars for LL(1) grammars? firstname.lastname@example.org (Lasse =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hiller=F8e?= Petersen) (2004-07-28)|
|From:||"Lasse =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hiller=F8e?= Petersen" <email@example.com>|
|Date:||13 Jul 2004 22:04:30 -0400|
|Posted-Date:||13 Jul 2004 22:04:30 EDT|
Lasse Hillerĝe Petersen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
In the meantime I have been reading on van Wijngaarden grammars; and
although (or because) my head is hurting a lot from this, *another*
thought has occured to me.
It seems that a vW grammar is as powerful as a Turing machine. Further,
it is decidable whether a CFG is LL(1).
My third question is: Is it possible to write a vW-grammar that would
accept (produce?) only CFGs that are LL(1)? And if yes, has anybody done
(In case my previous post has been ignored on the assumption that I am
fishing for help in doing homework, I will say that I am just an amateur
asking out of pure curiosity. In fact I post my questions here precisely
because I have no professor or tutor to ask.)
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.