|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)|
|Re: LR (k) vs. LALR firstname.lastname@example.org (Sylvain Schmitz) (2004-09-03)|
|Re: LR (k) vs. LALR email@example.com (2004-09-03)|
|Re: LR (k) vs. LALR firstname.lastname@example.org (Sean Case) (2004-09-07)|
|[1 later articles]|
|From:||Jean-Marc Bourguet <email@example.com>|
|Date:||11 Aug 2004 12:59:19 -0400|
"Tim Bauer" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > [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]
> Didn't Knuth prove that any LR(k) grammar can be rewritten to LR(1), albeit
> at a potential exponetial increase in the parse tables (number of distinct
> parse items).
> However, does this extend to an LALR(k) conversion to LALR(1)?
Every language for which a LR(1) grammar LR(1) exists has also an
LALR(1) grammar. (Search for the archive of this group, I started a
thread on the subject).
> > 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?
> I do have a suggestion here. I typically see compilers/interpreters
> make some syntactic concessions and offload extra checking to the
> semantic checker.
The major raison I do this is that it is easier to give good error
message and have some good error recovery.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.