Re: Full LL(1) versus Strong LL(1)... what's the diff?

vsnyder@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Van Snyder)
Thu, 14 Mar 91 23:47:35 GMT

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Full LL(1) versus Strong LL(1)... what's the diff? reidmp@maine.maine.edu (1991-03-13)
Re: Full LL(1) versus Strong LL(1)... what's the diff? vsnyder@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (1991-03-14)
Re: Full LL(1) versus Strong LL(1)... what's the diff? VM1!MAINE!REIDMP.BITNET@gatech.edu (Reid M. Pinchback) (1991-03-15)
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: vsnyder@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Van Snyder)
Keywords: LL(1), strong LL(1)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
References: <REIDMP.910313132041@maine.maine.EDU>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 91 23:47:35 GMT

In article <REIDMP.910313132041@maine.maine.EDU> reidmp@maine.maine.edu (Reid M. Pinchback) writes:
>In "Crafting a Compiler" (Fischer & LeBlanc), the pros and cons
>of a strong LL(1) versus a full LL(1) parser are discussed. The
>text implies that the example code in the book is for a strong LL(1)
>parser. It doesn't clearly mention how the actual construction of
>the parser differs for the two cases.


I thought for k=1, LL(k) and Strong LL(k) were the same? I don't have
Fischer & LeBlanc at hand (It's at home) (BTW, it's my favorite text to
teach from). On page 156 of Waite and Goos, we have Theorem 7.3: "Every
LL(1) grammar is a strong LL(1) grammar," preceeded by a simple proof that
follows immediately from Theorem 7.2: blah blah blah.


--
vsnyder@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov
ames!elroy!jato!vsnyder
vsnyder@jato.uucp
[Aho et al. don't talk about strong LL(1). What is it? -John]
--

Post a followup to this message

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