Re: Not LALR(1)

Joachim Durchholz <>
24 Apr 2002 22:26:06 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Not LALR(1) (antoine) (2002-04-23)
Re: Not LALR(1) (Joachim Durchholz) (2002-04-24)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: Joachim Durchholz <>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 24 Apr 2002 22:26:06 -0400
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 02-04-143
Keywords: LALR, parse
Posted-Date: 24 Apr 2002 22:26:05 EDT

antoine wrote:
> Do you know which of the commonly used langages are LALR(1) and which
> are NOT ?
> [They all are if you put enough cleverness into the lexer. Or none of
> them are if you want the parser to do enough semantic checks. -John]

Alternatively, you can allow a larger language and do some manual error
checking in the parse tree.

I'd like to see some data on how hard it is to make various languages
LALR(1). I already know that C++ is extremely ugly in this respect, and
that C isn't pretty but doable. What about other well-known languages
(Java, Perl, Pascal, name-your-favourite)?


Post a followup to this message

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