Related articles |
---|
LL vs LR, no jihad initiation, but... parrt@ecn.purdue.edu (1992-05-11) |
Re: LL vs LR, strengths and weaknesses mauney@adm.csc.ncsu.edu (1992-05-13) |
LL(1) Questions (Re: LL vs LR, strengths and weaknesses) bart@cs.uoregon.edu (1992-05-15) |
Re: LL(1) Questions (Re: LL vs LR, strengths and weaknesses) jos@and.nl (1992-05-17) |
Re: LL(1) Questions jan@si.hhs.nl (1992-05-18) |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
From: | bart@cs.uoregon.edu (Barton Christopher Massey) |
Keywords: | LL(1), question |
Organization: | minimal |
References: | 92-05-059 92-05-090 |
Date: | Fri, 15 May 1992 00:53:42 GMT |
OK, here's a couple of conjectures I floated around the dept. a while
back without getting a definite answer. How about all you parsing and
language gurus telling me how simple it is?
Conjecture 1: an algorithm exists which, given any unambiguous
(but otherwise unrestricted) grammar for an LL(1) language,
produces in finite time an LL(1) grammar for the same language.
Conjecture 2: an algorithm exists which, given any unambiguous
(but otherwise unrestricted) grammar, determines in finite time
whether the grammar describes an LL(1) language.
I suspect that full left-factorization and left-recursion removal will
satisfy the requirements of (1), and that conjecture (2) is false.
I'm sure these are trivial, but not to me :-). The application of these
conjectures to compilers is immediately obvious :-). Thanks for your
help,
Bart Massey
bart@cs.uoregon.edu
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.