|LR (k) vs. LALR email@example.com (Profetas) (2004-08-09)|
|Re: LR (k) vs. LALR firstname.lastname@example.org (Tim Bauer) (2004-08-10)|
|Re: LR (k) vs. LALR Colin_Paul_Gloster@ACM.org (Colin Paul Gloster) (2004-08-10)|
|Re: LR (k) vs. LALR email@example.com (Jean-Marc Bourguet) (2004-08-11)|
|Re: LR (k) vs. LALR firstname.lastname@example.org (2004-08-15)|
|Re: LR (k) vs. LALR email@example.com (Clint Olsen) (2004-08-23)|
|Re: LR (k) vs. LALR firstname.lastname@example.org (Jeremy Wright) (2004-08-25)|
|Re: LR (k) vs. LALR email@example.com (Sylvain Schmitz) (2004-09-03)|
|[3 later articles]|
|From:||"Tim Bauer" <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||10 Aug 2004 17:32:49 -0400|
|Organization:||Cal Poly, SLO|
|Posted-Date:||10 Aug 2004 17:32:49 EDT|
> [Some grammars are easier to express with more than one token of lookahead.
> You can rewrite gramars to LR(1), but sometimes at the cost of huge and
> ugly bloat. -John]
Didn't Knuth prove that any LR(k) grammar can be rewritten to LR(1), albeit
at a potential exponetial increase in the parse tables (number of distinct
However, does this extend to an LALR(k) conversion to LALR(1)?
> I have a grammar that requires more than one token of look ahead, is
> there any way that it could be solved using yacc or Bison?
I do have a suggestion here. I typically see compilers/interpreters
make some syntactic concessions and offload extra checking to the
The following page:
contains a neat explination of some of the hoops the designers went through
to make the grammar LALR(1). It contains a list of five problems and
shows the solution chosen. While the grammar for Java is probably
the heuristics to convert an LALR(k) grammar to LALR(1) might prove useful
to you. I certainly enjoyed the read.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.