|LR (k) vs. LALR firstname.lastname@example.org (Profetas) (2004-08-09)|
|Re: LR (k) vs. LALR email@example.com (Tim Bauer) (2004-08-10)|
|Re: LR (k) vs. LALR Colin_Paul_Gloster@ACM.org (Colin Paul Gloster) (2004-08-10)|
|Re: LR (k) vs. LALR firstname.lastname@example.org (Jean-Marc Bourguet) (2004-08-11)|
|Re: LR (k) vs. LALR email@example.com (2004-08-15)|
|Re: LR (k) vs. LALR firstname.lastname@example.org (Clint Olsen) (2004-08-23)|
|Re: LR (k) vs. LALR email@example.com (Jeremy Wright) (2004-08-25)|
|[4 later articles]|
|Date:||9 Aug 2004 00:34:57 -0400|
|Keywords:||parse, question, comment|
|Posted-Date:||09 Aug 2004 00:34:57 EDT|
What is the advantage of parsers that LALR that is greater than 1? I
have a grammar that requires more than one token of look ahead, is
there any way that it could be solved using yacc or Bison?
[Some grammars are easier to express with more than one token of lookahead.
You can rewrite gramars to LR(1), but sometimes at the cost of huge and
ugly bloat. -John]
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.