Re: LALR1 and LL1

Karsten Nyblad <148f3wg02@sneakemail.com>
26 Apr 2005 20:39:21 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
LALR1 and LL1 neelesh.bodas@gmail.com (Neelesh Bodas) (2005-04-11)
Re: LALR1 and LL1 schmitz@i3s.unice.fr (Sylvain Schmitz) (2005-04-16)
Re: LALR1 and LL1 148f3wg02@sneakemail.com (Karsten Nyblad) (2005-04-26)
Re: LALR1 and LL1 schmitz@i3s.unice.fr (Sylvain Schmitz) (2005-04-26)
Re: LALR1 and LL1 haberg@math.su.se (2005-04-28)
Re: LALR1 and LL1 148f3wg02@sneakemail.com (Karsten Nyblad) (2005-04-30)
Re: LALR1 and LL1 schmitz@i3s.unice.fr (Sylvain Schmitz) (2005-05-02)
Re: LALR1 and LL1 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) (2005-05-02)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Karsten Nyblad <148f3wg02@sneakemail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 26 Apr 2005 20:39:21 -0400
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 05-04-023 05-04-041
Keywords: LL(1), LALR, parse
Posted-Date: 26 Apr 2005 20:39:21 EDT

> [Are LL1 languages, as opposed to grammars, LALR languages? -John]


1: Any LL(K) language is LR(K).
2: Any LR(K) language is LR(1).
3: Any LR(k) language is SLR(k).
4: Any SLR(K) grammar is LALR(K).


Thus any LL(k) language is LALR(1).


You may find proofs of 2 and 3 in: "Parsing Theory" by S.Sippo & E.
Soisalon-soininen Vol 2, Springer-Verlag


Karsten Nyblad
148f3wg02 at sneakemail dot com

Post a followup to this message

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