At 16:40 +0100 2002/01/18, Akim Demaille wrote: >Me> All LR(n) grammars, n > 1, can be rewritten as LR(1) (to a >Me> grammar producing the same language) and even to LR(0) if each >Me> sentence is followed by an end marker, ... >This is over simplification: your words are right, there is an LR(1) >for that _language_, but usually it is good for recognition, not for >parsing. In other words, it is often very hard to recover the natural >parse tree for an LR(k) grammar which has been massaged down to LR(1).
And there is the problem of semantics: A "language" in the formal mathematical sense does not include the semantics, so I figure one does not know if the grammar transformation can be provided with good actions expressing the semantics. -- Or perhaps this is what you meant? But in the current case, I suspect they are not entirely into copying a language, but also designing a new one. So then it might help that a lot more can be captured by LR(1) than what one first might believe. To this one should add lexer & standard context sensitivity tweaks, which opens up even further doors. Hans Aberg _______________________________________________ Freecard-general mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freecard-general
