Tue, 20 May 2008 07:42:42 -0700 (PDT)

Related articles |
---|

LR(k) parser generator for k>1? txchen@gmail.com (Tom) (2008-05-18) |

Re: LR(k) parser generator for k>1? haberg_20080406@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) (2008-05-20) |

Re: LR(k) parser generator for k>1? joevans@gmail.com (Jason Evans) (2008-05-20) |

Re: LR(k) parser generator for k>1? parrt@cs.usfca.edu (parrt) (2008-05-20) |

Re: LR(k) parser generator for k>1? cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2008-05-28) |

Re: LR(k) parser generator for k>1? txchen@gmail.com (Thomas Chen) (2008-05-29) |

Re: LR(k) parser generator for k>1? kamalpr@hp.com (kamal) (2008-06-03) |

Re: LR(k) parser generator for k>1? cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2008-06-03) |

Re: LR(k) parser generator for k>1? FSet.SLB@gmail.com (Scott Burson) (2008-06-08) |

From: | Jason Evans <joevans@gmail.com> |

Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |

Date: | Tue, 20 May 2008 07:42:42 -0700 (PDT) |

Organization: | Compilers Central |

References: | 08-05-075 |

Keywords: | LR(1), parse |

Posted-Date: | 20 May 2008 11:22:40 EDT |

On May 18, 2:27 pm, Tom <txc...@gmail.com> wrote:

*> I have searched on Internet and the comp.compilers news group for*

*> LR(k) parser generator implementation where k > 1.*

*>*

*> Would it be meaningful to implement one? I'm very interested to know.*

I have contemplated how an LR(2) or LR(3) parser would impact LR(1)

parsers I've written, and my feeling is that while the extra lookahead

would sometimes be useful, it would make understanding grammar

problems more difficult. It is always possible to restructure a

grammar to reduce the lookahead requirement, which is my preferred

approach. Another solution is to use a GLR parser, which is capable

of resolving at run time any ambiguities that increased lookahead

would resolve at parser creation time. There are numerous GLR parser

generators available.

Jason

Post a followup to this message

Return to the
comp.compilers page.

Search the
comp.compilers archives again.