Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!world!iecc!compilers-sender From: vsnyder@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Van Snyder) Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: Full LL(1) versus Strong LL(1)... what's the diff? Keywords: LL(1), strong LL(1) Message-ID: <1991Mar14.234735.24401@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> Date: 14 Mar 91 23:47:35 GMT References: Sender: compilers-sender@iecc.cambridge.ma.us Reply-To: vsnyder@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Van Snyder) Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA Lines: 21 Approved: compilers@iecc.cambridge.ma.us Apparently-To: uunet!comp-compilers In article reidmp@maine.maine.edu (Reid M. Pinchback) writes: >In "Crafting a Compiler" (Fischer & LeBlanc), the pros and cons >of a strong LL(1) versus a full LL(1) parser are discussed. The >text implies that the example code in the book is for a strong LL(1) >parser. It doesn't clearly mention how the actual construction of >the parser differs for the two cases. I thought for k=1, LL(k) and Strong LL(k) were the same? I don't have Fischer & LeBlanc at hand (It's at home) (BTW, it's my favorite text to teach from). On page 156 of Waite and Goos, we have Theorem 7.3: "Every LL(1) grammar is a strong LL(1) grammar," preceeded by a simple proof that follows immediately from Theorem 7.2: blah blah blah. -- vsnyder@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov ames!elroy!jato!vsnyder vsnyder@jato.uucp [Aho et al. don't talk about strong LL(1). What is it? -John] -- Send compilers articles to compilers@iecc.cambridge.ma.us or {ima | spdcc | world}!iecc!compilers. Meta-mail to compilers-request.