From: matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Date: 2002-09-28T09:09:30+09:00
Subject: Re: Is Ruby's grammar LL(k)?

Hi,

In message "Re: Is Ruby's grammar LL(k)?"
    on 02/09/27, nobu.nokada@softhome.net <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:

|Perhaps, it really wants LALR(k) or possibly LL(k), where k is
|3 or more.

I think the current implementation requires two look ahead for the
pattern like "<digit>..".  So it should be LALR(2), and possibly LL(2).

							matz.