Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!us.feeder.erje.net!news.linkpendium.com!news.linkpendium.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED!nerds-end
From: George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Subject: Re: Programming language and IDE design
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 12:21:01 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 44
Sender: news@iecc.com
Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com
Message-ID: <14-03-005@comp.compilers>
References: <13-11-016@comp.compilers> <13-11-018@comp.compilers> <14-03-003@comp.compilers>
NNTP-Posting-Host: news.iecc.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: miucha.iecc.com 1393845975 99029 64.57.183.58 (3 Mar 2014 11:26:15 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@iecc.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 11:26:15 +0000 (UTC)
Keywords: parse, C++
Posted-Date: 03 Mar 2014 06:26:15 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:1127

On Sun, 2 Mar 2014 00:03:18 +0000 (UTC), hu47121@usenet.kitty.sub.org
(Hannah) wrote:

>I don't think C++ is LL(2).
>
>Think e.g.
>
>  T(a)++;
>vs.
>  T(a)[5];
>
>(Example from n3485, page 131).
>
>The former is a statement, while the latter is a declaration, and you
>can decide this only very late. As the first four tokens are the same,
>C++ can't be LL(4), at least.
>
>As you can substitute '('^n x ')' ^n for a in this example (i.e. enclose
>that identifier in any number of parentheses), C++ isn't LL(n) for any n.
>(In the first case, "a" is a subexpression, that can be parenthesized,
>while in the second case, it's the declarator-id that can also be
>parenthesized).

I suppose that it depends on your definitions: a "syntax" token is
different from a "grammar" token ... a single grammar token can
represent an expression of any complexity.  I think the whole notion
of lookahead is ambiguously level dependent.

But I concede your point re: syntax.

>So the C grammar is not LL(k) for any k, either. You can probably parse
>that particular part of the C/C++ grammar easily using LR.

However, both C and C++ are LL(*).  LL(*) Antlr-3 grammars are
available for both http://www.antlr3.org/grammar/list.html

Also in that list you'll find an LL(k) Antlr-2 grammar for C/C++ which
at quick glance claims to be LL(2) ... but I haven't examined it to
know what tricks it may be employing.
http://hg.netbeans.org/main/file/tip/cnd.modelimpl/src/org/netbeans/modules/c
nd/modelimpl/parser/cppparser.g

George