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

"Joseph H. Fasel" <jhf@lanl.gov>
12 May 1998 22:24:08 -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: "Joseph H. Fasel" <jhf@lanl.gov>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 12 May 1998 22:24:08 -0400
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
References: 98-04-065 98-04-107 <98-05-013@com 98-05-029
Keywords: LL(1)



corbett@lupa.Eng.Sun.COM (Robert Corbett) writes:
> >Any programming language that contains the dangling-else construct
> >is not LL(k) for any k.


Torben Mogensen wrote:
> 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.


I thought the definition of an LL(k) language was one that has an
LL(k) grammar. Is there some other definition in terms of parsers?


--
Joseph H. Fasel, Ph.D. email: jhf@lanl.gov
Technology Modeling and Analysis phone: +1 505 667 7158
University of California fax: +1 505 667 2960
Los Alamos National Laboratory post: TSA-7 MS F609; Los Alamos, NM 87545
--

Post a followup to this message

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