Re: Why LL(1) Parsers do not support left recursion?

Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@aol.com>
3 Aug 2006 11:02:26 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[27 earlier articles]
Re: Why LL(1) Parsers do not support left recursion? DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2006-07-28)
Re: Why LL(1) Parsers do not support left recursion? wyrmwif@tsoft.org (SM Ryan) (2006-07-29)
Re: Why LL(1) Parsers do not support left recursion? ajo@andrew.cmu.edu (Arthur J. O'Dwyer) (2006-07-29)
Re: Why LL(1) Parsers do not support left recursion? DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2006-07-29)
Re: Why LL(1) Parsers do not support left recursion? parsersinc@earthlink.net (SLK Parsers) (2006-07-31)
Re: Why LL(1) Parsers do not support left recursion? wyrmwif@tsoft.org (SM Ryan) (2006-08-01)
Re: Why LL(1) Parsers do not support left recursion? DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2006-08-03)
Re: Why LL(1) Parsers do not support left recursion? parsersinc@earthlink.net (SLK Parsers) (2006-08-03)
Re: Why LL(1) Parsers do not support left recursion? parsersinc@earthlink.net (SLK Parsers) (2006-08-04)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@aol.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 3 Aug 2006 11:02:26 -0400
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 06-07-115
Keywords: parse

SLK Parsers schrieb:


> There is no need to modify the ambiguous grammar in any way to get a
> correct parser. All that is needed is to choose one or the other of
> the two possible parses. Yacc does this by preferring the shift over
> the reduce. SLK does this by using the first production of the two
> alternates as the parse table entry.


Hmmm, how can you ever be sure, that the solution for the dangling else
always will be correct, also in other ambiguous situations?


DoDi



Post a followup to this message

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