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

"Joachim Durchholz" <joachim_d@gmx.de>
20 Oct 2002 22:55:05 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[13 earlier articles]
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)
Re: LR Grammars not in LALR(1) or LR(1) ska1@snafu.de (Sönke Kannapinn) (2002-10-25)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: "Joachim Durchholz" <joachim_d@gmx.de>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 20 Oct 2002 22:55:05 -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 02-10-015 02-10-064
Keywords: parse
Posted-Date: 20 Oct 2002 22:55:05 EDT

Sönke Kannapinn wrote:
>
> Put another way, every DCFL has an LR(1), an LALR(1) and even an SLR(1)
> grammar.


What, then, is the advantage of LALR(1) over SLR(1)? Especially in the
light that LALR and SLR versions of the grammar are structurally
equivalent (assuming some useful definition of "structurally equivalent").


Joachim
[I was under the impression that LALR tables are smaller. -John]


Post a followup to this message

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