On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 03:22:26AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Do you demonstrate that "C++ is not LALR(1)"?
I'll leave that to you as a homework assignment. Actually, C++ is not LALR(N) for any N. Get out the C++ grammar and figure it out, it's an easy proof. Come back when you have proved it to your own satisfaction, and please refrain from giving advice in the meantime. > | Bison remains a good solution in many cases, especially for languages > | specifically designed to be easy to parse with an LALR parser (that is, > | languages that don't look like C). > > Why don't we develop a "LR(k) / k small" functions-written parser for this > complex grammar? Because C++ is not LR(k) for any k. It really does require unbounded lookahead.
