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

wclodius@earthlink.net (William Clodius)
Mon, 21 Jul 2014 21:44:27 -0600

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[16 earlier articles]
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)
Re: LR(1) Parsing : Error Handling & Recovery cdodd@acm.org (Chris Dodd) (2014-07-26)
Re: LR(1) Parsing : Error Handling & Recovery DrDiettrich1@netscape.net (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2014-07-28)
Re: LR(1) Parsing : Error Handling & Recovery cdodd@acm.org (Chris Dodd) (2014-07-29)
Re: LR(1) Parsing : Error Handling & Recovery monnier@iro.umontreal.ca (Stefan Monnier) (2014-08-06)
Re: LR(1) Parsing : Error Handling & Recovery drikosev@otenet.gr (Evangelos Drikos) (2014-08-26)
[2 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
From: wclodius@earthlink.net (William Clodius)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 21:44:27 -0600
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 14-07-023 14-07-024 14-07-030 14-07-031 14-07-041 14-07-045
Keywords: parse
Posted-Date: 22 Jul 2014 10:05:10 EDT

> > 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.
>
> Rosenkrantz 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>


This topic has appeared a number of times in this forum, but most of the
time people have had trouble coming up with a specific irreducable LL(k)
grammar. The above link however appears to be such a grammar.


Post a followup to this message

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