|LR (k) vs. LALR firstname.lastname@example.org (Profetas) (2004-08-09)|
|Re: LR (k) vs. LALR email@example.com (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 firstname.lastname@example.org (Jean-Marc Bourguet) (2004-08-11)|
|Re: LR (k) vs. LALR email@example.com (2004-08-15)|
|Re: LR (k) vs. LALR firstname.lastname@example.org (Clint Olsen) (2004-08-23)|
|Re: LR (k) vs. LALR email@example.com (Jeremy Wright) (2004-08-25)|
|Re: LR (k) vs. LALR firstname.lastname@example.org (Sylvain Schmitz) (2004-09-03)|
|Re: LR (k) vs. LALR email@example.com (2004-09-03)|
|Re: LR (k) vs. LALR firstname.lastname@example.org (Sean Case) (2004-09-07)|
|Re: LR (k) vs. LALR cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2004-09-07)|
|From:||Sylvain Schmitz <email@example.com>|
|Date:||3 Sep 2004 12:31:20 -0400|
|References:||04-08-037 04-08-055 04-08-073 04-08-098|
|Posted-Date:||03 Sep 2004 12:31:20 EDT|
Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
> Jean-Marc Bourguet <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote
>>Every language for which a LR(1) grammar LR(1) exists has also an
>>LALR(1) grammar. (Search for the archive of this group, I started a
>>thread on the subject).
> The BNF remains the same as in LR(1), but the number of parser states
> is reduced in an LALR(1) parser. Either Im making a mistake or the
> text above is misleading to indicate that the grammar needs to be
> changed when moving from Lr(1) to LALR(1).
> [The moderator may want to filter out erroneous statements].
The class of LALR(1) grammars is a proper subset of the class of LR(1)
grammars, so yes, once you have obtained a LR(1) grammar for your
language, you might have to modify your grammar a bit further to make it
LALR(1). This generally involves introducing new rules to avoid some
state merges done by the LR(0) automaton which underlies the LALR(1) parser.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.