Skip to main content

Return to Question

Removed broken link. Changed LR to LR(1). Changed LALR to LALAR(1).
Source Link
OrenIshShalom
OrenIshShalom
  • 7.3k
  • 9
  • 54
  • 141

This is not my homework, I'm trying to understand LALR(k1) grammars. So I found this

S -> aEa | bEb | aFb | bFa
E -> e
F -> e

I made an analyzer (available as PDF in my git repo as LR1notLARL1.pdf

Butwrote the LR items, but I can't figure out, why is why this is an LR(1) grammar and not LALR(1)? Can

Can anyone help me? Thank you

This is not my homework, I'm trying to understand LALR(k) grammars. So I found this

S -> aEa | bEb | aFb | bFa
E -> e
F -> e

I made an analyzer (available as PDF in my git repo as LR1notLARL1.pdf

But I can't figure out, why is this LR grammar not LALR? Can anyone help me? Thank you

This is not my homework, I'm trying to understand LALR(1) grammars. So I found this

S -> aEa | bEb | aFb | bFa
E -> e
F -> e

I wrote the LR items, but I can't figure out why this is an LR(1) grammar and not LALR(1)?

Can anyone help me? Thank you

edited tags
Link
Bill the Lizard
Bill the Lizard
  • 407.4k
  • 213
  • 579
  • 892
Notice removed Reward existing answer by Jan Vorcak
Bounty Ended with templatetypedef's answer chosen by Jan Vorcak
Notice added Reward existing answer by Jan Vorcak
Bounty Started worth 50 reputation by Jan Vorcak
edited body; edited tags; edited title
Source Link
templatetypedef
templatetypedef
  • 375.8k
  • 112
  • 954
  • 1.1k

Why is this LR(1) grammar not LARLLALR(1)?

This is not my homework, I'm trying to understand LARLLALR(k) grammars. So I found this

S -> aEa | bEb | aFb | bFa
E -> e
F -> e

I made an analyzer (available as PDF in my git repo as LR1notLARL1.pdf

But I can't figure out, why is this LR grammar not LARLLALR? Can anyone help me? Thank you

Why is this LR(1) grammar not LARL(1)?

This is not my homework, I'm trying to understand LARL(k) grammars. So I found this

S -> aEa | bEb | aFb | bFa
E -> e
F -> e

I made an analyzer (available as PDF in my git repo as LR1notLARL1.pdf

But I can't figure out, why is this LR grammar not LARL? Can anyone help me? Thank you

Why is this LR(1) grammar not LALR(1)?

This is not my homework, I'm trying to understand LALR(k) grammars. So I found this

S -> aEa | bEb | aFb | bFa
E -> e
F -> e

I made an analyzer (available as PDF in my git repo as LR1notLARL1.pdf

But I can't figure out, why is this LR grammar not LALR? Can anyone help me? Thank you

edited tags
Link
Tomasz Nurkiewicz
Tomasz Nurkiewicz
  • 342.2k
  • 72
  • 713
  • 680
edited title
Link
Jan Vorcak
Jan Vorcak
  • 20.2k
  • 15
  • 57
  • 91
Source Link
Jan Vorcak
Jan Vorcak
  • 20.2k
  • 15
  • 57
  • 91