|Grammars for LL(1) grammars? firstname.lastname@example.org (LasseHillerĝePetersen) (2004-05-24)|
|Re: Grammars for LL(1) grammars? email@example.com (Lasse =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hiller=F8e?= Petersen) (2004-07-13)|
|van Wijngaarden Grammars, Was: Grammars for LL(1) grammars? firstname.lastname@example.org (2004-07-14)|
|Re: van Wijngaarden Grammars, Was: Grammars for LL(1) grammars? email@example.com (Lasse =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hiller=F8e?= Petersen) (2004-07-28)|
|From:||firstname.lastname@example.org (Wilhelm B. Kloke)|
|Date:||14 Jul 2004 12:07:31 -0400|
|Organization:||Inst ArbPhys Uni Dortmund|
|Posted-Date:||14 Jul 2004 12:07:31 EDT|
Lasse Hillerĝe Petersen <email@example.com> 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
Perhaps the following hint does not help for the current problem.
People interested in working with vWG might find helpful:
Dipl.-Math. Wilhelm Bernhard Kloke
Institut fuer Arbeitsphysiologie an der Universitaet Dortmund
Ardeystrasse 67, D-44139 Dortmund, Tel. 0231-1084-257
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.