Re: ambiguity of grammar and LR(k)

Linlist Leo <linlist@fudan.edu>
31 Oct 1999 23:56:59 -0500

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[6 earlier articles]
Re: ambiguity of grammar and LR(k) nhartzell@macalester.edu (Nathan Hartzell) (1999-10-29)
Re: ambiguity of grammar and LR(k) Xavier.Nicollin@imag.fr (Xavier Nicollin) (1999-10-31)
Re: ambiguity of grammar and LR(k) Xavier.Nicollin@imag.fr (Xavier Nicollin) (1999-10-31)
Re: ambiguity of grammar and LR(k) henning@makholm.net (Henning Makholm) (1999-10-31)
Re: ambiguity of grammar and LR(k) henning@makholm.net (Henning Makholm) (1999-10-31)
Re: ambiguity of grammar and LR(k) uranus!ikastan@uunet.uu.net (1999-10-31)
Re: ambiguity of grammar and LR(k) linlist@fudan.edu (Linlist Leo) (1999-10-31)
Re: ambiguity of grammar and LR(k) sol!ikastan@agate-ether.berkeley.edu (1999-11-02)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Linlist Leo <linlist@fudan.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.compilers
Date: 31 Oct 1999 23:56:59 -0500
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
Distribution: inet
References: 99-10-130 99-10-158 99-10-188
Keywords: parse, theory



> Yes, L = palindromes over {0,1}. The obvious grammar for L is
> unambiguous; but L isn't LR(k) for any k, because L is not a deter-
> ministic CFL.


thanks a lot. that directly addressed my question. though there may
be a little amendment -- nondeterminism doesn't imply non-lr(k). It
just imply the language is not LR(1).

Post a followup to this message

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