|Commonality in subset construction and LR set of items construction al cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2007-08-24)|
|Re: Commonality in subset construction and LR set of items constructio firstname.lastname@example.org (2007-08-25)|
|Re: Commonality in subset construction and LR set of items constructio email@example.com (Sylvain Schmitz) (2007-08-25)|
|Re: Commonality in subset construction and LR set of items constructio DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2007-08-26)|
|Re: Commonality in subset construction and LR set of items constructio firstname.lastname@example.org (2007-08-27)|
|From:||Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@aol.com>|
|Date:||Sun, 26 Aug 2007 19:36:08 +0200|
|Posted-Date:||28 Aug 2007 15:49:18 EDT|
Chris F Clark wrote:
> Recently the similarities between the subset construction algorithm to
> transform an NFA into a DFA and the LR set of items construction
> algorithm have been repeatedly thrust upon me, so much so that I have
> a hard time as seeing them as anything but one algorithm.
> Is this similarity a well known fact that I just somehow didn't learn
> or forgot?
Typical (BNF...) grammars are equivalent to NFA's, so this kind of
automaton IMO is only another, still more formal, reflection of the
input. For certain grammars a DFA can be constructed, from the NFA,
which also could be constructed immediately, when the user would
rephrase his input accordingly. It's only more convenient, when the user
can leave all automizeable tasks to his tools...
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.