Opeartor-precedence v.s. LL(1)

ejxue@ntu.ac.sg (Xue JingLing)
Sat, 28 Aug 1993 08:52:53 GMT

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Opeartor-precedence v.s. LL(1) ejxue@ntu.ac.sg (1993-08-28)
Re: Operator-precedence v.s. LL(1) tfj@apusapus.demon.co.uk (1993-08-29)
Re: Operator-precedence v.s. LL(1) bart@majestix.cs.uoregon.edu (1993-08-30)
Re: Operator-precedence v.s. LL(1) spencer@cwis.unomaha.edu (1993-09-07)
Re: Operator-precedence v.s. LL(1) dww@cli.com (1993-09-07)
| List of all articles for this month |

Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: ejxue@ntu.ac.sg (Xue JingLing)
Keywords: parse, theory, LL(1), question, comment
Organization: Compilers Central
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1993 08:52:53 GMT

Textbooks on compilers usually contain discussions about
the relationships between the other types of grammars.
I do not seem to come across a discussion regarding to
the grammars accepted by operator-precedence and LL(1)
(or recursive descent). Obviously, an inclusion relationship
does not exist, since (1) operator-precedence can parse
both left-recursive and/or ambiguous grammars while LL(1)
cannot, (2) LL(1) can parse grammars that have two adjacent
nonterminals at production right sides while the
operator-precedence cannot.

Two questions:

(1) What is the precise relationship between the two?

(2) Is there a language that can be parsed by one but not the

Jingling XUE Email ejxue@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg
School of EEE Phone +65 799 1236
Nanyang Technological University Telex RS 38851 NTU
SINGAPORE 2263 Fax +65 791 2687
[The answer to (2) is clearly yes, since you've given examples. -John]

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.