17 Oct 1998 02:00:00 -0400

Related articles |
---|

Looking for formal definition of LALR(k) laski@ics.uci.edu (Ziemowit Laski) (1998-10-17) |

Re:Looking for formal definition of LALR(k) KPRASAD@us.oracle.com (KPRASAD.US.ORACLE.COM) (1998-10-21) |

Re: Looking for formal definition of LALR(k) matt@timmermans.no-spam-remove.org (Matt Timmermans) (1998-10-22) |

Re: Looking for formal definition of LALR(k) laski@ics.uci.edu (Ziemowit Laski) (1998-10-22) |

Re: Looking for formal definition of LALR(k) laski@ics.uci.edu (Ziemowit Laski) (1998-10-24) |

From: | Ziemowit Laski <laski@ics.uci.edu> |

Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |

Date: | 17 Oct 1998 02:00:00 -0400 |

Organization: | Compilers Central |

Keywords: | parse, LALR, question |

Hello,

I am looking for a formal (i.e., algebraic) definition of LALR(k)

grammars, analogous to the existing LR(k) definition.

The dragon book, among others, defines LALR(k) operationally -- that

is, a grammar is LALR(k) if the parser generator accepts it without

any conflicts. In their article on LALR(1) lookahead sets (1982),

DeRemer and Pennello claim they know of "no reasonable way" to define

LALR(k) in a way that "does not involve the parser".

Is anyone aware of any developments since then (published papers,

etc.)? Thanks in advance for your assistance,

Zem Laski

Grad Student, Univ. of California, Irvine

Post a followup to this message

Return to the
comp.compilers page.

Search the
comp.compilers archives again.