Re: An example LL(K) language that is not LL(K-1) ?

klyjikoo <klyjikoo@gmail.com>
Sun, 14 Feb 2010 01:38:15 +0330

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[8 earlier articles]
Re: An example LL(K) language that is not LL(K-1) ? cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2010-02-05)
Re: An example LL(K) language that is not LL(K-1) ? kkylheku@gmail.com (Kaz Kylheku) (2010-02-06)
Re: An example LL(K) language that is not LL(K-1) ? klyjikoo@gmail.com (klyjikoo) (2010-02-06)
Re: An example LL(K) language that is not LL(K-1) ? slkpg@cox.net (SLK Mail) (2010-02-06)
Re: An example LL(K) language that is not LL(K-1) ? kkylheku@gmail.com (Kaz Kylheku) (2010-02-10)
Re: An example LL(K) language that is not LL(K-1) ? cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2010-02-10)
Re: An example LL(K) language that is not LL(K-1) ? klyjikoo@gmail.com (klyjikoo) (2010-02-14)
Re: An example LL(K) language that is not LL(K-1) ? cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2010-02-13)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: klyjikoo <klyjikoo@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 01:38:15 +0330
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 10-02-009 10-02-015 10-02-026 10-02-050
Keywords: DFA, lex
Posted-Date: 13 Feb 2010 19:39:13 EST

Chris F Clark <cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
> Actually, I htink you have made a slight typo, and want the B rule to
> recurse on B not A


Yes, I had a mistake... I want the B rule to recurse on B .


>the following grammar should work:
>
>
> S := A
> A := B C
> B := b A d // 1 form of recursion
> B := b b A a d // other form of recursion, note the slight difference
> B := a c
> C := A
> C := epsilon




Your example also shows the difference between LR(k) and LL(k) grammars,
similar to my example...


Post a followup to this message

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