Jun 5, 2014 · Is there a good resource online with a collection of grammars for some of the major parsing algorithms (LL(1), LR(1), LR(0), LALR(1))? I've found many individual grammars that fall into …

@MehdiCharife if your grammar has a FIRST/FIRST or FIRST/FOLLOW conflict anywhere, then it is not LL (1). It does not matter how far you can progress through a given string before the conflict …

Jan 24, 2009 · First off, a bit of pedantry. You cannot determine whether a language is LL (1) from inspecting a grammar for it, you can only make statements about the grammar itself. It is perfectly …

Dec 1, 2013 · Can anyone explain to me how FIRST and FOLLOW should be used in LL (1) grammar? I understand that they are used for syntax table construction, but I don't understand how.

Jan 1, 2017 · (I am spending the holiday time on some language theory. Excuse me if this is a naive question.) According to here: LL grammars, particularly LL(1) grammars, are of great practical …

Mar 26, 2018 · I don't know where the first chart comes from, but it's totally unreliable. Operator precedence grammars are LR (1). There are people (and Wikipedia) who seem to think that the word …

Mar 1, 2013 · I have the following grammar: S → a S b S | b S a S | ε Since I'm trying to write a small compiler for it, I'd like to make it LL(1). I see that there seems to be a FIRST/FOLLOW conflict here, …

May 12, 2011 · At a high level, the difference between LL parsing and LR parsing is that LL parsers begin at the start symbol and try to apply productions to arrive at the target string, whereas LR …

Apr 17, 2010 · How can it be shown that no LL(1) grammar can be ambiguous? I know what is ambiguous grammar but could not prove the above theorem/lemma.

Nov 14, 2010 · Something being LR does not mean that the parse tree with be identical to the inverse LL parse tree, and the thus parser will not necessarily use the productions in the opposite order. What it …