Re: First vs Predict and LL(*)

Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@netscape.net>
Thu, 22 Jan 2015 21:46:06 +0100

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[2 earlier articles]
Re: First vs Predict and LL(*) DrDiettrich1@netscape.net (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2015-01-07)
First vs Predict and LL(*) slkpg4@gmail.com (SLK Mail) (2015-01-07)
Re: First vs Predict and LL(*) alexander.morou@gmail.com (Alexander Morou) (2015-01-09)
Re: First vs Predict and LL(*) alexander.morou@gmail.com (Alexander Morou) (2015-01-09)
Re: First vs Predict and LL(*) DrDiettrich1@netscape.net (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2015-01-09)
Re: First vs Predict and LL(*) alexander.morou@gmail.com (Alexander Morou) (2015-01-22)
Re: First vs Predict and LL(*) DrDiettrich1@netscape.net (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2015-01-22)
Re: First vs Predict and LL(*) alexander.morou@gmail.com (Alexander Morou) (2015-01-23)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@netscape.net>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 21:46:06 +0100
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 15-01-003 15-01-039
Keywords: parse, LL(1)
Posted-Date: 22 Jan 2015 23:14:17 EST

Alexander Morou schrieb:


> This brings me to my next point: what if the point of ambiguity leads
> to a situation where the calling rule's tie for that symbol is a
> requirement for the parse, but the edge state is optional?


I'd consider that an language error. As you already found out yourself,
your language is not easy to parse, so that I'd expect that will be
equally hard to write valid sentences, which then also are parsed in the
*intended* way.


DoDi


Post a followup to this message

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