[antlr-interest] Re: Nondeterminism problem

sarah2geller sarah2geller at yahoo.com
Tue Dec 23 11:42:21 PST 2003

--- In antlr-interest at yahoogroups.com, Terence Parr <parrt at c...> 
> On Friday, December 19, 2003, at 12:09 PM, sarah2geller wrote:
> > Since t is not on the right side of a production, the t 
production is
> > not reachable in the grammar.
> >
> > As I said before, LL(1), SLL(1), and LALL(1) are all the same 
> > class. This is a well-known fact that you can find in any text 
> I think you'll find it says more precisely that LL(1) can be 
> as SLL(1) but they are not the same class of grammars.  Same class 
> languages, though. :)

No, I won't find this at all. Give a reference instead of hot air.
> > So when I said the grammar above was LL(1), that means that it is
> > also SLL(1) because they are the same class. Saying "strong LL
(1)" is
> > redundant because all LL(1) grammars are strong.
> I just posted an LL(1) grammar that is not LALL(1) nor SLL(1).  You 
> have to do the transformation I showed.  The difference between 
> and equivalent gets kinda murky. ;)

All of your grammar examples, including this one have been wrong.
> >  LL(k) is more
> > powerful than LALL(k) and SLL(k) only for k>1.
> And for k=1 grammars, but not languages; just to harp on it for a 
> second ;)

Again, wrong. You simply do not know what you are talking about.


Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 antlr-interest-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

More information about the antlr-interest mailing list