Re: LR Grammars not in LALR(1) or LR(1)

"Joachim Durchholz" <joachim_d@gmx.de>
29 Sep 2002 15:47:32 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[8 earlier articles]
Re: LR Grammars not in LALR(1) or LR(1) thp@cs.ucr.edu (2002-09-20)
Re: LR Grammars not in LALR(1) or LR(1) haberg@matematik.su.se (Hans Aberg) (2002-09-22)
Re: LR Grammars not in LALR(1) or LR(1) thp@cs.ucr.edu (2002-09-25)
Re: LR Grammars not in LALR(1) or LR(1) Mark.van.den.Brand@cwi.nl (M.G.J. van den Brand) (2002-09-25)
Re: LR Grammars not in LALR(1) or LR(1) Mark.van.den.Brand@cwi.nl (M.G.J. van den Brand) (2002-09-29)
Re: LR Grammars not in LALR(1) or LR(1) haberg@matematik.su.se (Hans Aberg) (2002-09-29)
Re: LR Grammars not in LALR(1) or LR(1) joachim_d@gmx.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2002-09-29)
Re: LR Grammars not in LALR(1) or LR(1) clint@0lsen.net (Clint Olsen) (2002-10-13)
Re: LR Grammars not in LALR(1) or LR(1) cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2002-10-13)
Re: LR Grammars not in LALR(1) or LR(1) Mark.van.den.Brand@cwi.nl (M.G.J. van den Brand) (2002-10-13)
Re: LR Grammars not in LALR(1) or LR(1) ska1@snafu.de (Sönke Kannapinn) (2002-10-18)
Re: LR Grammars not in LALR(1) or LR(1) joachim_d@gmx.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2002-10-20)
Re: LR Grammars not in LALR(1) or LR(1) clint@0lsen.net (Clint Olsen) (2002-10-24)
[1 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
From: "Joachim Durchholz" <joachim_d@gmx.de>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 29 Sep 2002 15:47:32 -0400
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 02-09-014 02-09-029 02-09-068 02-09-092 02-09-097 02-09-126 02-09-130 02-09-143
Keywords: parse
Posted-Date: 29 Sep 2002 15:47:31 EDT

thp@cs.ucr.edu wrote:
> Hmmmmm. Suppose we have a YACC input that uses disambiguation rules.
> Does the standard way of removing the precedence and associativity
> ambiguities by introducing new nonterminals and grammar rules always
> yield an LALR(1) grammar? It would be nice if that were so.


The original grammar is ambiguous, hence not LR-anything. So this
question doesn't make much sense to me. If disambiguating a grammar
doesn't work, the grammar is probably too complex anyway. It's too
easy to "disambiguate" a grammar into something that accepts a
language that's different from the intended one.


Regards,
Joachim

Post a followup to this message

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