|Tool support for resolving LR conflict email@example.com (2005-09-07)|
|Re: Tool support for resolving LR conflict firstname.lastname@example.org (2005-09-10)|
|Re: Tool support for resolving LR conflict email@example.com (Karsten Nyblad) (2005-09-17)|
|Re: Tool support for resolving LR conflict firstname.lastname@example.org (2005-10-02)|
|Re: Tool support for resolving LR conflict email@example.com (Sylvain Schmitz) (2005-10-04)|
|Date:||2 Oct 2005 02:53:55 -0400|
|Posted-Date:||02 Oct 2005 02:53:55 EDT|
Deremer and Penello describe a method for how you can give a hit to
the user on what is wrong in their TOPLAS article on how to calculate
LALR(1) lookahead sets.
Is Deremer's work being used in popular compiler compilers. Also seems
that his tecnique is not quite correct. A paper by Bermudez and
Schimpf on "On the (non-) relationship between SLR(1) and NQLALR(1)
grammars" disproves the claim of Deremer, that says NQLALR(1) is
superset of SLR(1). In the above views, should one use their method?
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.