Re: Is LL(k) LL(1) ?

Torben Mogensen <torbenm@diku.dk>
7 May 1998 16:48:57 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Is LL(k) LL(1) ? feedME!minotoko@uunet.uu.net (1998-04-15)
Re: Is LL(k) LL(1) ? will@ccs.neu.edu (William D Clinger) (1998-04-29)
Re: Is LL(k) LL(1) ? corbett@lupa.Eng.Sun.COM (1998-05-04)
Re: Is LL(k) LL(1) ? torbenm@diku.dk (Torben Mogensen) (1998-05-07)
Re: Is LL(k) LL(1) ? jhf@lanl.gov (Joseph H. Fasel) (1998-05-12)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Torben Mogensen <torbenm@diku.dk>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 7 May 1998 16:48:57 -0400
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 98-04-065 98-04-107 <98-05-013@com
Keywords: LL(1), theory

corbett@lupa.Eng.Sun.COM (Robert Corbett) writes:


>Any programming language that contains the dangling-else construct
>is not LL(k) for any k.


This is only half right. No grammar describing dangling else is LL(k),
but it is easy to construct an LL(1) parse table that handles the
dangling else problem. Hence, the language is LL(1) while the grammar
is not.


                Torben Mogensen (torbenm@diku.dk)
--

Post a followup to this message

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