|Does someone have a reference to the statement that almost all practic cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2012-05-30)|
|Does someone have a reference to the statement that almost all practic Sylvain.Schmitz@lsv.ens-cachan.fr (Sylvain Schmitz) (2012-05-30)|
|From:||Sylvain Schmitz <Sylvain.Schmitz@lsv.ens-cachan.fr>|
|Date:||Wed, 30 May 2012 23:17:39 +0200|
|Posted-Date:||30 May 2012 17:29:11 EDT|
Chris F Clark wrote:
> I'm writing up a small whitepaper(*) where I want to discuss LL and
> LR grammars. In it I want to sidestep the issue of the fact that
> there are LL grammars that are not LR
These would be hard to find. You probably mean LL grammars which are
> and vice-versa. Thus, I simply want to quote the conventional wisdom,
> i.e. that nearly any (artificial) language in use has an LL grammar.
> However, I'd like to reference someone else who has made that
> statement, so that it simply isn't a bald assertion without proof in
> my paper. It's instead a reference to a bald assertion without proof
> in someone else's paper (or web page or interview or whatever) ;-)
Terence Parr's papers should provide this kind of argument.
> With lesser importance, I wouldn't mind a reference to a proof that
> all deterministic context free languages have an LR(1) grammar.
This was already proven in Knuth's original paper on LR parsing, _On the
Translation of Languages from Left to Right_, Information and Control
8:607--639 (1965), Section V.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.