Re: SLR and LR(1) Differences: A Recap

Andru Luvisi <luvisi@andru.sonoma.edu>
19 Aug 2006 01:27:59 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
SLR and LR(1) Differences: A Recap vladimir.d.lushnikov@gmail.com (Vladimir Lushnikov) (2006-08-10)
Re: SLR and LR(1) Differences: A Recap momchil.velikov@gmail.com (momchil.velikov@gmail.com) (2006-08-12)
Re: SLR and LR(1) Differences: A Recap torbenm@app-4.diku.dk (2006-08-14)
Re: SLR and LR(1) Differences: A Recap vladimir.d.lushnikov@gmail.com (Vladimir Lushnikov) (2006-08-18)
Re: SLR and LR(1) Differences: A Recap luvisi@andru.sonoma.edu (Andru Luvisi) (2006-08-19)
Re: SLR and LR(1) Differences: A Recap rda@lemma-one.com (Rob Arthan) (2006-10-03)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Andru Luvisi <luvisi@andru.sonoma.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 19 Aug 2006 01:27:59 -0400
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 06-08-055 06-08-077 06-08-106
Keywords: parse, LR(1)
Posted-Date: 19 Aug 2006 01:27:59 EDT

>>>>> "Vladimir" == Vladimir Lushnikov <vladimir.d.lushnikov@gmail.com> writes:


        Vladimir> I agree, the reason I was asking is to clarify (the
        Vladimir> seemingly trivial) distinction between constructing SLR
        Vladimir> and LR(1) tables because I am trying to see whether
        Vladimir> there would be any difference if the tables were used
        Vladimir> (with an ambiguous grammar) in a GLR parsing algorithm.


If you feed it a language where some parts are LR(1) but not SLR, I
imagine that the SLR parser might be less efficient since it might
think that the grammar was ambiguous in a few places where it isn't.
I don't think that it would have any impact on the correctness of the
parser, though.


Andru
--
Andru Luvisi


Quote Of The Moment:
    An argument based on analogy is like a house built on sand.


Post a followup to this message

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