Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED!nerds-end From: wclodius@earthlink.net (William Clodius) Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: LR(1) Parsing : Error Handling & Recovery Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 21:44:27 -0600 Organization: Compilers Central Lines: 14 Sender: news@iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <14-07-053@comp.compilers> References: <14-07-023@comp.compilers> <14-07-024@comp.compilers> <14-07-030@comp.compilers> <14-07-031@comp.compilers> <14-07-041@comp.compilers> <14-07-045@comp.compilers> NNTP-Posting-Host: news.iecc.com X-Trace: miucha.iecc.com 1406037910 34974 2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970 (22 Jul 2014 14:05:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@iecc.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:05:10 +0000 (UTC) Keywords: parse Posted-Date: 22 Jul 2014 10:05:10 EDT 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:1343 > > LL(k) always can be refactored to single token lookahead, but it > > causes an explosion of grammar states. E.g., given a single LL(3) > > rule, an equivalent set of LL(1) rules must match every valid > > combination of tokens at +1, +2 and +3. > > Rosenkrantz and Stearns appeared to show otherwise, > > Do you know of a problem with their proof? > See This topic has appeared a number of times in this forum, but most of the time people have had trouble coming up with a specific irreducable LL(k) grammar. The above link however appears to be such a grammar.