26 Oct 2006 00:30:25 -0400

Related articles |
---|

LL(k) vs Strong_LL(k) anha2k47@gmail.com (Fanta) (2006-10-21) |

Re: LL(k) vs Strong_LL(k) schmitz@i3s.unice.fr (Sylvain Schmitz) (2006-10-21) |

Re: LL(k) vs Strong_LL(k) anha2k47@gmail.com (Fanta) (2006-10-24) |

Re: LL(k) vs Strong_LL(k) Juan.Miguel.Vilar@gmail.com (Juan Miguel Vilar) (2006-10-26) |

From: | "Juan Miguel Vilar" <Juan.Miguel.Vilar@gmail.com> |

Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |

Date: | 26 Oct 2006 00:30:25 -0400 |

Organization: | Compilers Central |

References: | 06-10-078<4539C854.8020202@i3s.unice.fr> 06-10-096 |

Keywords: | parse, LL(1) |

Posted-Date: | 26 Oct 2006 00:30:25 EDT |

Fanta wrote:

*> Dear Schmitz,*

*>*

*> Thanks for your words. But I wrote " the I've proved that the families*

*> of LL(k) language and families of Strong LL(k) (SLLk)) language are*

*> equal". It's here "language", not "grammar". By that sentence, I mean:*

*> for any LL(k) grammar G, there's a SLL(k) grammar G', such that: L(G)*

*> = L(G'). And ofcouse, each SLL(k) grammar is also a LL(k) grammar.*

*>*

*> Thank you very much.*

You can find a proof for it in "Parsing Theory" of Seppo Sippu and

Eljas Soisalon-Soininen.

Regards,

Juan Miguel

Post a followup to this message

Return to the
comp.compilers page.

Search the
comp.compilers archives again.