Re: What is the trick of languages being LL(k+1), but not LL(k)?

Oliver Zeigermann <oliver@zeigermann.de>
1 Feb 2004 12:50:47 -0500

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[2 earlier articles]
Re: What is the trick of languages being LL(k+1), but not LL(k)? cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2004-01-12)
Re: What is the trick of languages being LL(k+1), but not LL(k)? oliver@zeigermann.de (Oliver Zeigermann) (2004-01-16)
Re: What is the trick of languages being LL(k+1), but not LL(k)? cgweav@aol.com (2004-01-16)
Re: What is the trick of languages being LL(k+1), but not LL(k)? cfc@world.std.com (Chris F Clark) (2004-01-17)
Re: What is the trick of languages being LL(k+1), but not LL(k)? oliver@zeigermann.de (Oliver Zeigermann) (2004-01-22)
Re: What is the trick of languages being LL(k+1), but not LL(k)? oliver@zeigermann.de (Oliver Zeigermann) (2004-01-22)
Re: What is the trick of languages being LL(k+1), but not LL(k)? oliver@zeigermann.de (Oliver Zeigermann) (2004-02-01)
Re: What is the trick of languages being LL(k+1), but not LL(k)? cgweav@aol.com (2004-02-04)
Re: What is the trick of languages being LL(k+1), but not LL(k)? cgweav@aol.com (2004-04-15)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Oliver Zeigermann <oliver@zeigermann.de>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 1 Feb 2004 12:50:47 -0500
Organization: T-Online
References: 04-01-062 04-01-098
Keywords: parse
Posted-Date: 01 Feb 2004 12:50:47 EST

Clayton Weaver wrote:
> Do you mean "the Hopkins reason"?
> (<http://www.uwm.edu/~whopkins/cs/CompFAQ.txt>


OK, I really read (and understood most of) this article - and I really
found nothing related to my question nor anything new to me. I *must*
have missed the point. I have not even found anything related to what
you called "the Hopkins reason"! Could you please clarify? Have you
given the wrong link? Am I simply an idiot?


Thanks in advance and cheers :)


Oliver

Post a followup to this message

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