|Full LL(1) versus Strong LL(1)... what's the diff? email@example.com (1991-03-13)|
|Re: Full LL(1) versus Strong LL(1)... what's the diff? firstname.lastname@example.org (1991-03-14)|
|Re: Full LL(1) versus Strong LL(1)... what's the diff? VM1!MAINE!REIDMP.BITNET@gatech.edu (Reid M. Pinchback) (1991-03-15)|
|From:||email@example.com (Van Snyder)|
|Keywords:||LL(1), strong LL(1)|
|Organization:||Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA|
|Date:||Thu, 14 Mar 91 23:47:35 GMT|
In article <REIDMP.firstname.lastname@example.org.EDU> email@example.com (Reid M. Pinchback) writes:
>In "Crafting a Compiler" (Fischer & LeBlanc), the pros and cons
>of a strong LL(1) versus a full LL(1) parser are discussed. The
>text implies that the example code in the book is for a strong LL(1)
>parser. It doesn't clearly mention how the actual construction of
>the parser differs for the two cases.
I thought for k=1, LL(k) and Strong LL(k) were the same? I don't have
Fischer & LeBlanc at hand (It's at home) (BTW, it's my favorite text to
teach from). On page 156 of Waite and Goos, we have Theorem 7.3: "Every
LL(1) grammar is a strong LL(1) grammar," preceeded by a simple proof that
follows immediately from Theorem 7.2: blah blah blah.
[Aho et al. don't talk about strong LL(1). What is it? -John]
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.