parsing - Conflict resolution in LALR(1) parser -


Some questions about conflict in LALR (1) parser are mainly related to the details of parsing:

  1. If different LALRs ( 1) Parser is described in textbooks, if any changes / conflicts are reduced, then it is an indication that grammar is correct for starting with LLRR (1)?

  2. Due to the merger of the state from LR (1), valid LLR (1) Maybe LLRR (1), right?

  3. Priority and collaboration used in YACC and GNU bison are the tools introduced to help reduce or reduce the conflict, is not it? Apart from this, should be examined only by interpersonal behavior if the predecessor of contradictory changes / rules is low, in any other case the co-relation Is irrelevant, right?

I am asking because I am not 100% sure, and books do not extend much about dispute resolution, only a few lines get on this topic

The questions related to the bison manual links given above:

  • They claim that the missing priority in the dispute rules, Like SHIFT? I would have felt that if there is any priority in the deficiency rule, then it kills with precedence without any precedence.

    1. If there is a conflict (either change / reducing or Reducing / decreasing) LLRR (K) is found during construction, then grammar is not LLRR (K).

      3. But it can reduce / decrease the conflict if that happens, then grammar is not LLR (1), even if it is LR (1). (This is not really a question of "validity", it is a question of reciprocity by a particular algorithm.)

    3. Yes, precedence (and support, which is just a favor of precedence

    4. Priority Production (to the left) and lookahead token

      5. Em> (on the right) Associativity affects the comparison operator that is used: either & le; or & lt; (or, % nonassoc In this case, there is an excellent discussion of algorithms, however, this is not very complicated: if the product "wins", reduce the parser. Otherwise this change.

      Bonus Question: The predefined rules apply only if both production (either through % prec; />> or by default, in the past, Final terminals in production) and lookahhead tokens. If one of the primary Interpretation is not declared, the change is expected to win. It is logical to think not, but it is the way.


Comments

Post a Comment