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

"Clint Olsen" <clint@0lsen.net>
24 Oct 2002 23:56:36 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[14 earlier articles]
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: "Clint Olsen" <clint@0lsen.net>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 24 Oct 2002 23:56:36 -0400
Organization: AT&T Broadband
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 02-10-096
Keywords: parse, LALR
Posted-Date: 24 Oct 2002 23:56:36 EDT

In article 02-10-096, Joachim Durchholz wrote:
>
> [I was under the impression that LALR tables are smaller. -John]


The Dragon Book states that SLR is not as powerful as LALR. The example
grammar given was:


S -> L = R
S -> R
L -> * R
L -> id
R -> L


Apparently SLR does not remember enough left context to resolve what to do
on '='.


-Clint

Post a followup to this message

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