Re: Practical LALR(1) grammer?

haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg)
13 Jun 2005 17:56:21 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Practical LALR(1) grammer? weltraum@astrocat.de (2005-06-12)
Re: Practical LALR(1) grammer? haberg@math.su.se (2005-06-13)
Re: Practical LALR(1) grammer? haberg@math.su.se (2005-06-13)
Re: Practical LALR(1) grammer? bluemalov@hotmail.com (Andrew Wilson) (2005-06-13)
Re: Practical LALR(1) grammer? d148f3wg02@sneakemail.com (Karsten Nyblad) (2005-06-16)
Re: Practical LALR(1) grammer? haberg@math.su.se (2005-06-18)
An "open" letter to Karsten Nyblad (and other compiler compiler implem cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2005-06-18)
Re: An "open" letter to Karsten Nyblad (and other compiler compiler im vtsikoza@yahoo.com (2005-06-21)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 13 Jun 2005 17:56:21 -0400
Organization: Mathematics
References: 05-06-074 05-06-076
Keywords: parse, LALR
Posted-Date: 13 Jun 2005 17:56:21 EDT

John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
> [I agree, the main appeal of LALR is that its tables used up less of
> a 64K address space. -John]


I had a discussion with Paul Hilfinger where he thought that, in view
of cheaper memory, perhaps Bison should be given an LR(1) option, more
convenient for GLR. Also, when an error token is detected, LR(1)
issues an error immediately, whereas LALR(1) may perform additional
reductions. This is inconvenient in error recovery, and especially in
interactive interfaces, where one wants to display the valid extension
of an partially entered text. So perhaps LALR(1) will slowly move out
of use, as LR(1) becomes more readily available.


--
    Hans Aberg

Post a followup to this message

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