Path: csiph.com!3.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news.snarked.org!news.linkpendium.com!news.linkpendium.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED.news.iecc.com!nerds-end
From: SLK <slkpg4@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Subject: LR(k) Parsing
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 10:04:41 -0500
Organization: Compilers Central
Lines: 10
Sender: news@iecc.com
Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com
Message-ID: <19-12-024@comp.compilers>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="59451"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com"
Keywords: LR(1), parse
Posted-Date: 23 Dec 2019 21:53:27 EST
X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com
X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com
X-FAQ-and-archives: http://compilers.iecc.com
Xref: csiph.com comp.compilers:2405

The SLK Parser Generator implements a variation on LR(k) that might better
be called LR(1+k). SLK adds k-lookahead to the LR(1) machine similar to
what SLR does to the LR(0) machine, but k instead of just 1. This is the
same algorithm that is also used by SLK to add k-lookahead to LL parsing.

With simple table compaction the LR(1) parser is not that big for the
grammars I have seen. I would be interested in links to LR/LALR test
grammars.

SLK Parser Generator:  http://www.h8dems.com