From: | vtsikoza@yahoo.com (Vit) |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
Date: | 21 Jun 2005 13:52:13 -0400 |
Organization: | http://groups.google.com |
References: | 05-06-074 05-06-076 05-06-079 05-06-086 05-06-094 |
Keywords: | LALR, parse |
Posted-Date: | 21 Jun 2005 13:52:13 EDT |
> Karsten Nyblad <d148f3wg02@sneakemail.com> writes:
>
> > Todays computers are large enough to handle LALR(K) with K larger than
> > 1.
> ...
I only wonder, have not languages designers become cleverer in the
recent decades to invent languages that do not require the full
strength of LR(k)?
Could anyone show the samples from practical languages
a) where SLR(k), LALR(k) is not enough, well, at least for k<=2, and
b) where this need cannot be reduced at least to LALR(1) by cosmetic
improvements of the syntax (e.g. insertion of anchoring keywords or
symbols)?
Thanks,
Vit
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.