Re: LR (k) vs. LALR

Colin Paul Gloster <Colin_Paul_Gloster@ACM.org>
10 Aug 2004 17:35:30 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
LR (k) vs. LALR profetas@gmail.com (Profetas) (2004-08-09)
Re: LR (k) vs. LALR tbauer@cadrc.calpoly.edu (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 jm@bourguet.org (Jean-Marc Bourguet) (2004-08-11)
Re: LR (k) vs. LALR kamalp@acm.org (2004-08-15)
Re: LR (k) vs. LALR clint@0lsen.net (Clint Olsen) (2004-08-23)
Re: LR (k) vs. LALR jeremy.wright@microfocus.com (Jeremy Wright) (2004-08-25)
Re: LR (k) vs. LALR schmitz@i3s.unice.fr (Sylvain Schmitz) (2004-09-03)
Re: LR (k) vs. LALR kamalp@acm.org (2004-09-03)
[2 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Colin Paul Gloster <Colin_Paul_Gloster@ACM.org>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 10 Aug 2004 17:35:30 -0400
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 04-08-037
Keywords: parse
Posted-Date: 10 Aug 2004 17:35:30 EDT

John Levine, news:comp.compilers moderator said:


"Some grammars are easier to express with more than one token of lookahead.
You can rewrite gramars to LR(1), [..]"


At the risk of being so bold as contradicting some helpful
advice from the expert moderator without actually adding
anything useful myself I dare allege ... some languages are
easier to express with more than one token of lookahead
(there is more than one grammar for one language, but if you
take a grammar and make alterations which still express the
same language then you have a different grammar).


Regards,
Colin Paul Gloster
[You're right, same language, different grammar. -John]


Post a followup to this message

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