|look for LR(k) grammar email@example.com (Tom) (2008-12-15)|
|Re: look for LR(k) grammar firstname.lastname@example.org (Felipe Angriman) (2008-12-15)|
|Re: look for LR(k) grammar email@example.com (Pete Jinks) (2008-12-17)|
|Re: look for LR(k) grammar firstname.lastname@example.org (Tom) (2008-12-18)|
|Re: look for LR(k) grammar cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2008-12-20)|
|Re: look for LR(k) grammar email@example.com (Tom) (2009-01-15)|
|Date:||Thu, 18 Dec 2008 20:27:05 -0800 (PST)|
|Posted-Date:||19 Dec 2008 05:32:43 EST|
Yes I think this is a LR(2) grammar.
It is similar to a pattern of LR(k) grammars that I know:
S : a A D a ;
S : b A D b ;
S : a B D b ;
S : b B D a ;
A : a ;
B : a ;
D : c^k ;
Here c^k means the concatenation of k letters 'c'.
This is a LR(k+1) grammar, depending on the value of k.
I'm looking for LR(k) grammars that are a little more complicated in
the following way:
There is an approach to solve the reduce/reduce conflict in a LR(1)
parsing machine by splitting the states involved, for example,
discussed in D. Spector (81,88) or D. Pager (77, lane-tracing). For
both grammars above, there are only 2 states involved: the state a
that contains the conflict, and one of its immediate parent state b
that leads to the conflict in a. I'm hoping to get LR(k) grammars that
contains more levels of states involved, not just 2 levels as
On Dec 15, 1:49 am, "Felipe Angriman" <felipeangri...@gmail.com>
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 8:17 AM, Tom <txc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm looking for LR(k) grammars where k > 1.
> S : B a b
> S : C a c
> B : 1
> C : 1
> I think that will do for k = 2. (I haven't tested it)
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.