BNF grammar
Rewrite the grammar below to make it unambiguous.
The rue <A> -> 0<A>1 | 01 makes the grammar ambiguous as we can't decide which rule to choose (also known as left factoring)
The grammar will be
<S> -> <A><S> | e
<A> -> <A>1 | 0 <B>
<B> -> <A>1 | 1
Do give a thumbs up and in case there are doubts leave a comment.
BNF grammar Rewrite the grammar below to make it unambiguous. Rewrite the grammar below to make it unambiguous. (2 marks) Rewrite the grammar below to make it unambiguous. (2 marks)
1. Write a BNF description of the logical expressions and the relational expressions in C++. Make sure that the BNF reflects the order of precedence of the operators, as well as, the associativity rules. 2. Using the BNF rules in 1., give a rightmost derivation and show a parse tree for the expression below. 3. Prove that the following grammar is ambiguous and rewrite the grammar to remove ambiguity «newexp> → «newexp> @ <newexp> ulvl w I <other> <other> →
Please answer the questions below: 7. Rewrite the following BNF grammar using the form of EBNF described on the bottom half of page 127 in Sebesta. <import_decl> → import <import_list> ; <import_list> → <package_list> | <package_list> . * <package_list> → <identifier> | <package_list> . <identifier> <identifier> → a | b | c Make the resulting grammar as simple as possible, but keep all four of the original nonterminals, which will now be named ImportDecl, ImportList, PackageList, and Identifier. (Note: There...
P2) Given grammar in BNF, answer the following questions (30 points) <stmt-list>→<stmt> | <stmt»; <stmt-list> (a) Rewrite the given grammar into a EBNF (b) Is the given grammar ambiguous? Support your answer to receive the full credit. (c) Given string A-B C-D: B-C-A-D, draw a parsing tree
P2) Given grammar in BNF, answer the following questions (30 points) → |
Give an unambiguous grammar for the same language generated by
the grammar:
<fruit>* : -<yellow» | <red> <yellow» banana |mango | <empty> <red> ::- cherry | apple | <empty> "Same language" means that the unambiguous grammar can generate exactly the same set of strings as the ambiguous grammar. No more; no fewer. There will of course be a difference in how - by what NTSs and productions - at least some of those strings are generated
* : -
1. (15 pts) Consider the following BNF grammar: For each of the strings below, indicate whether or not the string can be derived from the grammar. ?f so, provide a derivation. (a) (5 pts) aabccd (b) (5 pts) accbcc (c) (5 pts) acccce
7. (10 pts). Transform the following extended BNF grammar into BNF: ->[a] <A bC> KA cla C XC> cb
BNF 5. Write a BNF grammar that accepts an unsigned decimal number. This number can contain a single decimal point, if it does it cannot be the first character in the string, nor may it be the last.
In each case below, show that the grammar is ambiguous, and find an equivalent unambiguous gramnar. The symbol ^ represents Lambda. Please only do this problem if you are familiar with Formal Languages and Automata. S --> ABA A --> aA | ^ B --> bB | ^
2. Given is the following BNF grammar: < comp op > ''<' I ''<-'' I 'ל'' I ''>-'' I ''--'' I '''-'' -> arith op 〉 → + 1-1 * 1/ < paren〉 → "(" I ") " token 〉 → 〈 comp op 〉 | 〈 arith op 〉 I 〈 paren 〉 Construct a DFA that accepts the strings in < token 〉.
Show that the following grammar for expressions is ambiguous and provide an alternate unambiguous grammar that defines the same set of expressions. <expr> ::= <term> | <factor> <term> ::= <factor> | <expr> + <term> <factor> ::= id | <expr> * <factor>