Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.compilers > #1497
| From | Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.compilers |
| Subject | Re: First vs Predict and LL(*) |
| Date | 2015-01-22 21:46 +0100 |
| Organization | Compilers Central |
| Message-ID | <15-01-040@comp.compilers> (permalink) |
| References | <15-01-003@comp.compilers> <15-01-039@comp.compilers> |
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
Back to comp.compilers | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
First vs Predict and LL(*) alexander.morou@gmail.com - 2015-01-07 02:09 -0800
Re: First vs Predict and LL(*) alexander.morou@gmail.com - 2015-01-07 08:37 -0800
Re: First vs Predict and LL(*) Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@netscape.net> - 2015-01-07 23:04 +0100
Re: First vs Predict and LL(*) Alexander Morou <alexander.morou@gmail.com> - 2015-01-09 00:37 -0600
Re: First vs Predict and LL(*) Alexander Morou <alexander.morou@gmail.com> - 2015-01-09 12:47 -0600
Re: First vs Predict and LL(*) Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@netscape.net> - 2015-01-09 23:35 +0100
First vs Predict and LL(*) "SLK Mail" <slkpg4@gmail.com> - 2015-01-07 20:40 -0800
Re: First vs Predict and LL(*) Alexander Morou <alexander.morou@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 01:07 -0600
Re: First vs Predict and LL(*) Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@netscape.net> - 2015-01-22 21:46 +0100
Re: First vs Predict and LL(*) Alexander Morou <alexander.morou@gmail.com> - 2015-01-23 01:16 -0600
csiph-web