|Is LL(k) LL(1) ? feedMEfirstname.lastname@example.org (1998-04-15)|
|Re: Is LL(k) LL(1) ? email@example.com (William D Clinger) (1998-04-29)|
|Re: Is LL(k) LL(1) ? corbett@lupa.Eng.Sun.COM (1998-05-04)|
|Re: Is LL(k) LL(1) ? firstname.lastname@example.org (Torben Mogensen) (1998-05-07)|
|Re: Is LL(k) LL(1) ? email@example.com (Joseph H. Fasel) (1998-05-12)|
|From:||William D Clinger <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||29 Apr 1998 22:30:09 -0400|
> Can any LL(k) grammar be transformed into an LL(1) one ?
It has been shown that the classes of LL(k) languages are distinct
for every k, and properly contained in the deterministic languages.
Thus there are some languages with SLR(1) (or even LR(0)) grammars
that do not have LL(k) grammars at all! This is sometimes thought
to prove the superiority of the LR approach, but, in practice,
programming languages do not actually seem to fall in the gap
between LL(1) languages and deterministic languages....
-- J J Horning, "LR Grammars and Analyzers", in Bauer and Eickel
[editors], Compiler Construction: an Advanced Course, second
edition, Springer-Verlag, 1976.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.