Related articles |
---|
What IS an LL/LR/SLR/LALR etc. grammar? joe.hotchkiss@gecm.com (Joe Hotchkiss) (1999-02-18) |
Re: What IS an LL/LR/SLR/LALR etc. grammar? dwight@pentasoft.com (1999-02-21) |
Re: What IS an LL/LR/SLR/LALR etc. grammar? paul.janssens@skynet.be.NOSPAM (JPA) (1999-02-21) |
Re: What IS an LL/LR/SLR/LALR etc. grammar? bromage@cs.mu.OZ.AU (1999-02-21) |
Re: What IS an LL/LR/SLR/LALR etc. grammar? jamz@my-dejanews.com (1999-02-24) |
Re: What IS an LL/LR/SLR/LALR etc. grammar? mslamm@mscc.huji.ac.il (Ehud Lamm) (1999-02-24) |
From: | JPA <paul.janssens@skynet.be.NOSPAM> |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
Date: | 21 Feb 1999 21:37:17 -0500 |
Organization: | Belgacom Skynet SA/NV |
References: | 99-02-099 |
Keywords: | parse |
LL,LR,SLR and LALR are parsing methods. If a grammar can be parsed by
that method, it is also called LL,LR,SLR or LALR (k).
LL(k) means a top-down parser can be created for the parser with a max
lookahead of k symbols.
LR(k) means a bottom-up parser can be created for the parser with a max
lookahead of k symbols.
LALR(1) grammars are a subset of LR(1) grammars, requiring smaller
parsing table. (speed up gain vs. complication of error reporting and
recovery).
SLR(1) parsing is a hack of LR(0) parsing: you attempt to construct a
LR(0) parser for it, and if there are only minor glitches, you slap on
some extra control.
Because these parsing processes are rather complex, it's a lot of work
to check if a grammar is LR(k),SLR(1) or LALR(1)
Theory and Practice of Compiler Writing, by Tremblay and Sorenson,
McGraw Hill, is an in-depth work, but not for the technically
challenged.
JPA
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.