Re: LL(k) vs Strong_LL(k)

"Juan Miguel Vilar" <Juan.Miguel.Vilar@gmail.com>
26 Oct 2006 00:30:25 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
LL(k) vs Strong_LL(k) anha2k47@gmail.com (Fanta) (2006-10-21)
Re: LL(k) vs Strong_LL(k) schmitz@i3s.unice.fr (Sylvain Schmitz) (2006-10-21)
Re: LL(k) vs Strong_LL(k) anha2k47@gmail.com (Fanta) (2006-10-24)
Re: LL(k) vs Strong_LL(k) Juan.Miguel.Vilar@gmail.com (Juan Miguel Vilar) (2006-10-26)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: "Juan Miguel Vilar" <Juan.Miguel.Vilar@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 26 Oct 2006 00:30:25 -0400
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 06-10-078<4539C854.8020202@i3s.unice.fr> 06-10-096
Keywords: parse, LL(1)

Fanta wrote:
> Dear Schmitz,
>
> Thanks for your words. But I wrote " the I've proved that the families
> of LL(k) language and families of Strong LL(k) (SLLk)) language are
> equal". It's here "language", not "grammar". By that sentence, I mean:
> for any LL(k) grammar G, there's a SLL(k) grammar G', such that: L(G)
> = L(G'). And ofcouse, each SLL(k) grammar is also a LL(k) grammar.
>
> Thank you very much.


You can find a proof for it in "Parsing Theory" of Seppo Sippu and
Eljas Soisalon-Soininen.


Regards,


Juan Miguel



Post a followup to this message

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