Related articles |
---|
Grammars for LL(1) grammars? lhp+news@toft-hp.dk (LasseHillerøePetersen) (2004-05-24) |
Re: Grammars for LL(1) grammars? lhp+news@toft-hp.dk (Lasse =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hiller=F8e?= Petersen) (2004-07-13) |
van Wijngaarden Grammars, Was: Grammars for LL(1) grammars? wb@arb-phys.uni-dortmund.de (2004-07-14) |
Re: van Wijngaarden Grammars, Was: Grammars for LL(1) grammars? lhp+news@toft-hp.dk (Lasse =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hiller=F8e?= Petersen) (2004-07-28) |
From: | "Lasse =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hiller=F8e?= Petersen" <lhp+news@toft-hp.dk> |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
Date: | 13 Jul 2004 22:04:30 -0400 |
Organization: | Private |
References: | 04-05-063 |
Keywords: | parse, LL(1) |
Posted-Date: | 13 Jul 2004 22:04:30 EDT |
Lasse Hillerøe Petersen <lhp+news@toft-hp.dk> wrote:
In the meantime I have been reading on van Wijngaarden grammars; and
although (or because) my head is hurting a lot from this, *another*
thought has occured to me.
It seems that a vW grammar is as powerful as a Turing machine. Further,
it is decidable whether a CFG is LL(1).
My third question is: Is it possible to write a vW-grammar that would
accept (produce?) only CFGs that are LL(1)? And if yes, has anybody done
so?
(In case my previous post has been ignored on the assumption that I am
fishing for help in doing homework, I will say that I am just an amateur
asking out of pure curiosity. In fact I post my questions here precisely
because I have no professor or tutor to ask.)
-Lasse
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.