Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!news.misty.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED!nerds-end From: Hans-Peter Diettrich Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: First vs Predict and LL(*) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 21:46:06 +0100 Organization: Compilers Central Lines: 13 Sender: news@iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <15-01-040@comp.compilers> References: <15-01-003@comp.compilers> <15-01-039@comp.compilers> NNTP-Posting-Host: news.iecc.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: miucha.iecc.com 1421986457 3848 2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970 (23 Jan 2015 04:14:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@iecc.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 04:14:17 +0000 (UTC) Keywords: parse, LL(1) Posted-Date: 22 Jan 2015 23:14:17 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:1497 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