From: MikkelFJ <mikkelfj-anti-spam@...>
Date: 2002-09-28T09:26:36+09:00
Subject: Re: Is Ruby's grammar LL(k)?


"Yukihiro Matsumoto" <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote in message
news:1033171762.477103.17040.nullmailer@picachu.netlab.jp...
> 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).

Can't this be written with

value ::= token_integer | token_integer token_dotdot

This doesn't require a 2 lookahead, but it does require that you inspect the
type of value subsequently.

Mikkel