12 May 1998 22:24:08 -0400

Related articles |
---|

Is LL(k) LL(1) ? feedME!minotoko@uunet.uu.net (1998-04-15) |

Re: Is LL(k) LL(1) ? will@ccs.neu.edu (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) ? torbenm@diku.dk (Torben Mogensen) (1998-05-07) |

Re: Is LL(k) LL(1) ? jhf@lanl.gov (Joseph H. Fasel) (1998-05-12) |

From: | "Joseph H. Fasel" <jhf@lanl.gov> |

Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |

Date: | 12 May 1998 22:24:08 -0400 |

Organization: | Los Alamos National Laboratory |

References: | 98-04-065 98-04-107 <98-05-013@com 98-05-029 |

Keywords: | LL(1) |

corbett@lupa.Eng.Sun.COM (Robert Corbett) writes:

*> >Any programming language that contains the dangling-else construct*

*> >is not LL(k) for any k.*

Torben Mogensen wrote:

*> This is only half right. No grammar describing dangling else is LL(k),*

*> but it is easy to construct an LL(1) parse table that handles the*

*> dangling else problem. Hence, the language is LL(1) while the grammar*

*> is not.*

I thought the definition of an LL(k) language was one that has an

LL(k) grammar. Is there some other definition in terms of parsers?

--

Joseph H. Fasel, Ph.D. email: jhf@lanl.gov

Technology Modeling and Analysis phone: +1 505 667 7158

University of California fax: +1 505 667 2960

Los Alamos National Laboratory post: TSA-7 MS F609; Los Alamos, NM 87545

--

Post a followup to this message

Return to the
comp.compilers page.

Search the
comp.compilers archives again.