Re: LR(1) Parsing : Error Handling & Recovery

wclodius@earthlink.net (William Clodius)
Sun, 20 Jul 2014 21:43:37 -0600

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[11 earlier articles]
Re: LR(1) Parsing : Error Handling & Recovery haberg-news@telia.com (Hans Aberg) (2014-07-19)
Re: LR(1) Parsing : Error Handling & Recovery drikosev@otenet.gr (Evangelos Drikos) (2014-07-20)
Re: LR(1) Parsing : Error Handling & Recovery haberg-news@telia.com (Hans Aberg) (2014-07-20)
Re: LR(1) Parsing : Error Handling & Recovery gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2014-07-20)
Re: LR(1) Parsing : Error Handling & Recovery arnold@skeeve.com (2014-07-20)
Re: LR(1) Parsing : Error Handling & Recovery monnier@iro.umontreal.ca (Stefan Monnier) (2014-07-20)
Re: LR(1) Parsing : Error Handling & Recovery wclodius@earthlink.net (2014-07-20)
Re: LR(1) Parsing : Error Handling & Recovery cdodd@acm.org (Chris Dodd) (2014-07-21)
Re: LR(1) Parsing : Error Handling & Recovery DrDiettrich1@netscape.net (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2014-07-21)
Re: LR(1) Parsing : Error Handling & Recovery drikosev@otenet.gr (Evangelos Drikos) (2014-07-21)
Re: LR(1) Parsing : Error Handling & Recovery haberg-news@telia.com (Hans Aberg) (2014-07-21)
Re: LR(1) Parsing : Error Handling & Recovery wclodius@earthlink.net (2014-07-21)
Re: LR(1) Parsing : Error Handling & Recovery gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2014-07-25)
[7 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
From: wclodius@earthlink.net (William Clodius)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 21:43:37 -0600
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 14-07-023 14-07-024 14-07-030 14-07-031 14-07-041
Keywords: parse, theory,question
Posted-Date: 21 Jul 2014 10:08:40 EDT

George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> wrote:


> On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 13:41:53 -0600, wclodius@earthlink.net (William
> Clodius) wrote:
>
> >I have memories that an LR(k) grammar can in principle be refactored
> >to LR(1), but that in general an LL(k) grammar cannot be refactored to
> >LL(1).
>
> LL(k) always can be refactored to single token lookahead, but it
> causes an explosion of grammar states. E.g., given a single LL(3)
> rule, an equivalent set of LL(1) rules must match every valid
> combination of tokens at +1, +2 and +3.


Rosenkerantz and Stearns appeared to show otherwise,
<http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=805431>
Do you know of a problem with their proof?
See <http://compilers.iecc.com/comparch/article/92-05-052>


Post a followup to this message

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