Talk:Canonical LR parser

I'm still not sure if the naming is correct here. When I read "The dragon book" I get the impression that all the LR(k) with k >= 0 parsers are canonical parsers. -- Jan Hidders 14:14 Aug 18, 2002 (PDT)

Canonicity

A canonical bottom-up parser reduces the leftmost phrase (aka the handle) of a sentential form. This is the case of most bottom-up parsing methods, including SLR(k), LALR(k) and LR(k) for k≥0. To be contrasted with noncanonical bottom-up parsers, where any phrase can be reduced (Tom Szymanski's PhD thesis is the best ressource I know on the subject available on the Internet).

I support the idea of having a separate page for LR(0), and suggest the Canonical LR page to be renamed LR(1) in consequence. -- Sylvain Schmitz 12:36 Aug 4, 2004 (GMT)

Not quite accurate

I think there's some confusion between canonical parsers and canonical parsing tables here. There are a number of algorithms for computing LR(k) parsing tables. The most general methods construct "canonical" parsing tables, faster methods build approximations, for example LALR(1).

Constructing LR(1) parsing tables

Where did this text come from? It looks cut-and-pasted. --Doradus 21:01, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Yep. From http://www.cse.uconn.edu/~akiayias/cse244fa04/N244-4-LR-more.ppt -- Jan Hidders 13:04, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Same as/more than what?

The article is written as a comparison - "Goto is the same", "Reduce is more refined" etc. Same as what? More refined than what? IMO, those parts should be written as a full description perhaps followed by a comparison "This makes the reduce action more refined than the reduce operation in the <something>-parser". Perhaps the concept is most succinctly presented by comparison to other kinds of LR parsers rather than full description - but it should always be clear what you're comparing to. 85.194.50.194 11:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, "for all b in FIRST(β a)", FIRST seems to be defined nowhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.55.254 (talk) 02:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Needs more cowb- i mean hyperlinks

This article contains a LOT of highly domain-specific language that makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever to someone who hasn't studied the subject in depth beforehand. (And even less for someone who only studied maths in another language in their youth, then picked up english second-hand.) Please at least have the common decency to link words like "production" and "terminal" and anything else that isn't understandable from basic english with to their respective explaining wikipedia pages. --178.0.83.23 (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)