|SLR and LR(1) Differences: A Recap email@example.com (Vladimir Lushnikov) (2006-08-10)|
|Re: SLR and LR(1) Differences: A Recap firstname.lastname@example.org (email@example.com) (2006-08-12)|
|Re: SLR and LR(1) Differences: A Recap firstname.lastname@example.org (2006-08-14)|
|Re: SLR and LR(1) Differences: A Recap email@example.com (Vladimir Lushnikov) (2006-08-18)|
|Re: SLR and LR(1) Differences: A Recap firstname.lastname@example.org (Andru Luvisi) (2006-08-19)|
|Re: SLR and LR(1) Differences: A Recap email@example.com (Rob Arthan) (2006-10-03)|
|From:||Andru Luvisi <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||19 Aug 2006 01:27:59 -0400|
|References:||06-08-055 06-08-077 06-08-106|
|Posted-Date:||19 Aug 2006 01:27:59 EDT|
>>>>> "Vladimir" == Vladimir Lushnikov <email@example.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
Quote Of The Moment:
An argument based on analogy is like a house built on sand.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.