[antlr-interest] Re: antlr vs. sableCC comparison

[Oliver Zeigermann]

--- In antlr-interest at yahoogroups.com, Terence Parr <parrt at j...> 
> > You can always left factor, so LL(k) can never
> > describe a language you can not describe by LL(k-1).
> 
> Actually I believe there are *languages* that are LL(k) but not 
> LL(k-1).  The same is not true for LR.  LR(k) is same as LR(k-1) 
> languages and grammars.  Just saw that lemma in a book I think ;)
> 

This makes me curious. Can you give an example for a language that 
is LL(k), but not LL(k-1). Also, what about my theoretical argument 
above? If it is not convincing, where lies my mistake?

Oliver


 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/