Re: SLR and LR(1) Differences: A Recap

"momchil.velikov@gmail.com" <momchil.velikov@gmail.com>
12 Aug 2006 13:05:36 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
SLR and LR(1) Differences: A Recap vladimir.d.lushnikov@gmail.com (Vladimir Lushnikov) (2006-08-10)
Re: SLR and LR(1) Differences: A Recap momchil.velikov@gmail.com (momchil.velikov@gmail.com) (2006-08-12)
Re: SLR and LR(1) Differences: A Recap torbenm@app-4.diku.dk (2006-08-14)
Re: SLR and LR(1) Differences: A Recap vladimir.d.lushnikov@gmail.com (Vladimir Lushnikov) (2006-08-18)
Re: SLR and LR(1) Differences: A Recap luvisi@andru.sonoma.edu (Andru Luvisi) (2006-08-19)
Re: SLR and LR(1) Differences: A Recap rda@lemma-one.com (Rob Arthan) (2006-10-03)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: "momchil.velikov@gmail.com" <momchil.velikov@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 12 Aug 2006 13:05:36 -0400
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 06-08-055
Keywords: LR(1), parse
Posted-Date: 12 Aug 2006 13:05:36 EDT

Vladimir Lushnikov wrote:
> SLR uses FOLLOW sets to predict when to reduce by a production. And
> conflicts arise at the point where, after a . in other SLR items the
> tokens in FOLLOW(current_item) and in FIRST intersect. Yes?


No, the difference between SLR and LR(1) is that FOLLOW sets are a way
too conservative estimate (i.e. a superset) of the possible symbols,
which may appear after a production, thus resulting in reduce-reduce
conflicts.


~velco


Post a followup to this message

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