D.E. Knuth. On the translation of languages from left to right. Information and Control,8:607--639, 1965. 12  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....we have found. In contrast, a traditional LR parser would use the stack to retain this information. We are thus able to reduce reliance on the stack. Our trie has one slight problem, however: it can be infinite in size The set of viable prefixes, and consequently i, is known to be a regular set [13]. Unfortunately, this set will be infinite in all but the most trivial cases. If we had no recursion in the grammar G, then L(G) would be finite and so would i. We induce this situation by introducing limit points at nonterminal symbols in G in such a way as to break the recursire cycles in G. ....

Knuth, D. E. On the Translation of Languages from Left to Right. Information and Control, 8:607-639, 1965.

.... given any sentential form, it is possible to identify all handles of the sentential form looking at j symbols to the left and k symbols to the right of the handle (for some finite j and k) BC(j, k) grammars never gained much importance, since shortly after Floyd[9] presented them in 1964, Knuth[12], in 1965, introduced LR(k) grammars and showed how very efficient parsers can be constructed for this larger class of grammars. All BC grammars, however, are continuous and so form an important subclass of continuous grammars. This is proved next. Theorem I BC(j,k) C C PROOF. Assume we axe ....

Donald E. Knuth. On the translation of languages from left to right. Information and Controll, 8:607- 639, 1965.

....to work in linear time for the Boolean closure of the family of deterministic context free languages. Keywords: Conjunctive grammar, parsing, bottom up, LR, generalized LR. 1. Introduction The LR parsing algorithm for deterministic context free languages [1, 2, 12] was introduced by Knuth in [7]. It was actually the rst ecient algorithm to handle a suciently wide subclass of contextfree grammars wide enough to describe the syntax of most of the arti cial languages that one will generally need to parse. The linear time complexity of this algorithm and the general simplicity of its ....

D. E. Knuth, \On the translation of languages from left to right", Information and Control, 11 (1967), 269-289.

....shifted on to the stack (if it s an odd occurrence) and reduced to C (if it s an even occurrence) x must be reduced to A if it s preceeded by C on the stack, and to B if preceeded by a ( There is no need to maintain state information externally. Every LR grammar has an equivalent BRC grammar [12, 20]. In the context of logic programming, the advantage of this simpli cation of LR parsing is that it facilitates the formulation of deterministic bottom up parsing as deterministic proof search. Instead of implementing general LR parsing algorithms by brute force, a process that destroys much of ....

D. E. Knuth. On the translation of languages from left to right. Information and Control, 8(6):607-639, 1965.

....S 0 on the left hand side. We denote the set of nonterminals with N , the set of terminals with T , and the set of productions with R. For simplicity, we assume that grammars do not contain epsilon productions. Before giving a formal explanation of SLR parsing, we will give an intuitive idea [14] behind this parsing method. Suppose that we are constructing a derivation in reverse, that is, from the string generated by the derivation to the start symbol. Assume also that the current string has the form B 1 : B i B i 1 ff , where the suffix B i 1 ff represents the part of the string ....

Donald E. Knuth. On the translation of languages from left to right. Information and Control, 8:607--639, 1965.

....rely on deterministic finite state machines to keep 1 The representation of parsers in the style of logical inference rules was introduced in [14] track of stack contents. All BRC grammars are also LR grammars and all LR grammars have BRC equivalents that recognize the same language (see [10, 7]) The essential difference between BRC grammars and LR grammars that are not already BRC can be illustrated by the following LR(0) grammar: S aA j bB A (A) j x B (B) j x A reduced reduce conflict would exist between A x and B x unless one keeps track of whether an a or a b was ....

.... l (ff) last l (oe) implies A fi = A 2 fi 2 and ff 2 fi 2 = oefi: If we restrict the preconditions of the definition so that ff = oe (which would also make redundant the lookback condition last l (ff) last l (oe) then this definition would be equivalent to that of LR(k) grammars ([10]) Thus it is easy to see why every BRC(l; k) grammar is immediately an LR(k) grammar. Furthermore, BRC grammars are capable of generating the same set of languages as LR grammars, namely all deterministic context free languages ( 10, 7] In particular, every LR(k) grammar has an equivalent ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

D. E. Knuth. On the translation of languages from left to right. Information and Control, 8(6):607--639, 1965.

....Adjuncts are restricted to heads at the X level, and to maximal projections at the X level. The parse in (2) contains an example of head adjunction. The verbal head has adjoined to in ection forming katta (buy past) Phrase structure recovery in pappi is implemented by a backtracking LR(1) parser (Knuth, 1965), which builds candidate phrase structures in a bottom up, left to right fashion. 2.2 Movement Phrase structure recovery may introduce underspeci ed empty categories. These empty categories may be instantiated as traces during the computation of movement. pappi directly implements overt NP ....

Knuth D. E. (1965). On the translation of languages from left to right. Information and Control, 8(6), 607-639.

....subclass of LR(k) which strictly includes k transformable and PLR(k) classes. 1 Introduction The LR(k) grammar suggested by Knuth is the largest class of grammars which can be deterministically parsed in bottom up manner on reading the input strings from left to right and looking k symbols ahead [2]. The LL(k) grammar is the counterpart of top down parsing, but known as a subclass of LR(k) grammars. In this paper, we concentrate on the problem of transforming LR(k) grammars into LL(k) forms that leftto right cover the original grammars. We call such transformed grammar LL(k) covering ....

Knuth, D.E.: On the Translation of Languages from Left to Right, Information Control 8, 607-639 (1965)

....compilation of communicating processes[4] string pattern matching[3,19] approximate string pattern matching[32] model checking[10] lexical scanning[2] and VLSI layout design[31] unit time incremental acceptance testing in a DFA CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 2 is also a crucial step in LR k parsing[17]; algorithms for acceptance testing and DFA construction from regular expressions are implemented in the UNIX operating system[26] Throughout this thesis our model of computation is a uniform cost sequential RAM [1] We report the following six results. 1. Berry and Sethi[5] use results of ....

Knuth, D., "On the translation of languages from left to right", Information and Control, Vol. 8, No. 6, 1965, pp. 607 - 639.

....in practice, as it simplifies translator development. As this paper is motivated by practice not theory, we justify our arguments via examples; theoretical issues are of secondary concern. We focus on parser generator tools which automatically implement an LL(k) parser [12] 10] or an LR(k) parser [9] [8] given a grammar 1 specification, because all else being equal, we believe programmers would rather use a parser generator rather than implementing a translator by hand. In addition, programmers should be able to write natural grammars, that reflect the underlying structure of the language ....

....because computers are more powerful and because space efficient heuristics [11] have been developed that circumvent the intractable nature of parsing with k 1. ffl Second, many have felt that k 1 is unnecessary when using an LR(1) based tool because LR(1) equals LR(k 1) in recognition power [9]. However, this viewpoint is theoretical only and is erroneous in practice. i) In translation LR(1) is strictly weaker than LR(k 1) The presence of semantic actions, which must be executed immediately when encountered, makes it impossible to convert an arbitrary LR(k) grammar to an LR(k ....

Donald Knuth. On the Translation of Languages from Left to Right. Information and Control, 8:607--639, 1965.

....max(vp) max(ap) max(pp) max(xp) proj(n,n1) proj(v,v1) proj(a,a1) proj(p,p1) proj(n1,np) proj(v1,vp) proj(a1,ap) proj(p1,pp) head(n1,n) head(v1,v) head(a1,a) head(p1,p) head(np,n) head(vp,v) head(ap,a) head(pp,p) A LR(1) based parser was adopted for analysis. LR(1) parsing, (Knuth, 1965) is a well known and highly efficient method of shift reduce (bottom up) parsing that processes morphemes in a left to right manner using a single symbol of lookahead for local disambiguation. 8 The adopted algorithm relaxes the strict LR(1) requirement of zero conflicts by allowing shift reduce ....

Knuth D. E. (1965). On the translation of languages from left to right. Information and Control, 8(6), 607--639.

....But the nonterminals and the productions may be different. In the course of the paper we will also encounter a generalized notion of equivalence (which actually isn t an equivalence relation and therefore needs another name) 6 This has already been observed by Knuth in his original paper [18]. 11 Definition 2.5.2 (Quasi equivalence) We say that the grammar G 0 models the grammar G, if L t (G 0 ) L(G) that is, the sentences of G 0 are the sentential forms of G. We sometimes also say that the two grammars are quasi equivalent. Now we introduce a few elementary operations ....

.... the main reference here is, of course, the famous dragon book [1] to which most other books refer anyhow, e.g. 2, 39] The other class takes the viewpoint of formal language theory [19, 29, 32] here the choice is not so obvious, but we basically employ [29] Knuth in his original paper [18] actually addresses both variants. There is a second problem that we have to take into consideration: as was mentioned above, our construction does in its current form not necessarily terminate. In order not to obfuscate the following discussion we ignore this problem for the moment. The ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

D. E. Knuth. On the translation of languages from left to right. Information and Control, 8:607--639, 1965.

.... developing deterministic parsing techniques for various classes of unrestricted grammars has been done, for example, by Loeckx [12] Walters [19] Barth [4] Sebesta and Jones [16] Turnbull and Lee [17] Kunze [11] Wegner [20] Vold man [18] and Fisher [8] In particular, the LR method of Knuth [10] has been extended to context sensitive grammars by Walters and, in a less general way, to unrestricted grammars by Turnbull and Lee. Our SLR(1) and LALR(1) parsing methods show the same compactness, efficiency and simplicity as in the context free case [6, 1] and apply to many grammars not ....

Knuth, D.E.: On the translation of languages from left to right. Information and Control 8, 607-639 (1965)

....concern. We Partial support for this work has come from the Army Research Office contract number DAAL03 89 C0038 with the Army High Performance Computing Research Center at the U of MN. 1 focus on parser generator tools which automatically implement an LL(k) parser [RS70] PQ] or an LR(k) parser [Knu65] [Joh78] given a grammar specification, because all else being equal, we believe programmers would rather use a parser generator rather than implementing a translator by hand. In addition, programmers should be able to write natural grammars, that reflect the underlying structure of the language ....

....computers are more powerful and because space efficient heuristics [Par93] have been developed that circumvent the intractable nature of parsing with k 1. ffl Second, many have felt that k 1 is unnecessary when using an LR(1) based tools because LR(1) equals LR(k 1) in recognition power [Knu65]. However, this viewpoint is theoretical only and is erroneous in practice. i) In translation LR(1) is strictly weaker than LR(k 1) The presence of semantic actions, which must be executed immediately when encountered, makes it impossible to convert an arbitrary LR(k) grammar to an LR(k ....

Donald Knuth. On the Translation of Languages from Left to Right. Information and Control, 8:607--639, 1965.

.... l (ff) last l (oe) implies A fi = A 2 fi 2 and ff 2 fi 2 = oefi: If we restrict the preconditions of the definition so that ff = oe (which would also make redundant the lookback condition last l (ff) last l (oe) then this definition would be equivalent to that of LR(k) grammars ([10]) Thus it is easy to see why every BRC(l; k) grammar is immediately an LR(k) grammar. Furthermore, it has been proved ( 10, 7] that BRC grammars are capable of generating the same set of languages as LR grammars (namely all deterministic context free languages) In particular, every LR(k) ....

....so that ff = oe (which would also make redundant the lookback condition last l (ff) last l (oe) then this definition would be equivalent to that of LR(k) grammars ( 10] Thus it is easy to see why every BRC(l; k) grammar is immediately an LR(k) grammar. Furthermore, it has been proved ([10, 7]) that BRC grammars are capable of generating the same set of languages as LR grammars (namely all deterministic context free languages) In particular, every LR(k) grammar has an equivalent 2 In other words, the lookback, unlike the lookahead, can not just be a finite sequence of grammar ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

D. E. Knuth. On the translation of languages from left to right. Information and Control, 8(6):607--639, 1965.

.... automata from regular expressions is of central importance to the compilation of communicating processes[4] string pattern matching[3] model checking[8] lexical scanning[2] and VLSI layout design[20] unit time incremental acceptance testing in a DFA is also a crucial step in LR k parsing[12]; algorithms for acceptance testing and DFA construction from regular expressions are implemented in the UNIX operating system[17] Throughout this paper our model of computation is a uniform cost sequential RAM [1] We report the following four results. 1. Recently Berry and Sethi[5] used ....

Knuth, D., "On the translation of languages from left to right", Information and Control, Vol. 8, Num. 6, 1965, pp. 607 - 639.

....Nonetheless, the academic discipline of programming language design has proven valuable, because many of its insights and techniques move into the mainstream over a period of decades. In particular, the first wave of language design innovations, that of syntax definition [36] parsing theory [23], and simple data typing [19] developed in the 1960 s and 1970 s, are firmly implanted within the mainstream today. One no longer needs to justify why a language s syntax is based on an LALR(k) grammar and why its data type checking relies on a propositional logic of types. Practicing ....

D. Knuth. On the translation of languages from left to right. Information and Control, 8(6):607--639, 1965.

....a has to be read before it can be decided which rule to apply in an early stage of the leftmost derivation, because it depends on whether the word contains a letter c or a letter d. Using rightmost derivations instead of leftmost derivations leads to define the LR grammars: Definition 6.4. [28, 34] A context free grammar G = V; P ) over the terminal alphabet A is a LR(k) grammar if, S Gamma r mXu Gamma mffu = pv S Gamma r m 0 X 0 u 0 Gamma m 0 ff 0 u 0 = pv 0 (with u; u 0 2 A ; p 2 (V [A) V ) and F irst k (v) F irst k (v 0 ) imply X = X ....

D.E. Knuth. On the translation of languages from left to right. Inform. and Control, 8:607--639, 1965.

....only complicated in itself but also forces computations to be more complicated. However, there is another way to make a grammar (or conctype) unambiguous. We can use precedence and associativity rules for disambiguating. The use of precedences are common in parsers which are based on LR techniques [ASU86, Knu65]. For these parsers, the use of precedences to resolve ambiguities heavily depend on the LR parsing technique. Since we not do use an LR parser for conctypes this way of using precedences is not suitable. Moreover, we think the way precedences are used in LR parsers is unnatural, because the ....

Donald E. Knuth. On the Translation of Languages from Left to Right. Information and Control, 8(6):607--639, December 1965.

....on matrix multiplication stands today at O(n 2:376 ) CW87] However, other algorithms such as Earley s [Ear70] have proven to be much more efficient in practice. The LR parsing techniques have become popular as efficient and powerful methods for parsing CFLs. They were first proposed by Knuth [Knu65] and further developed by Korenjak [Kor69] and DeRemer [DeR69] DeR71] LR parsers parse the input bottom up, scanning the input left to right, producing a rightmost derivation. They are deterministic and efficient, being driven by a table of parsing actions pre compiled from the grammar. ....

D. E. Knuth. On The Translation of Languages from Left to Right. Information and Control, 8(6):607--639, 1965.

....exist, parsers are often implemented by hand due to the lack or inappropriatness of tools; however, parser generation tools are also becoming strong enough to be used in a complete compiler construction system. Parsing theory has developed a number of parser algorithms, such as LR(k) Knu65] LALR(k) DeR71] DeR71] and LL(k) RS70] Par93] With the development of grammar analysis, it is possible to determine which grammar specifications could be implemented using a particular parsing method. This is an important capability for compiler tools. If a parser generator blindly ....

D. E. Knuth. On the translation of languages from left to right. Information and Control, 8(6):607--639, 1965.

....construct the grammar in a way that all requirements hold. 4.5 Bottom Up Parsing A more general method of analyzing a token stream is to start with the leaves of the parse tree. This is called shift reduce parsing. The most general members of this group are LR(1) parsers, which are introduced by [Knuth65]. The idea is to replace the leftmost substring in the input, which matches a right side of a production, by the nonterminal on the left of this production. This action is a reduction and the substring to be replaced is called handle. The input stream is read from left to right, shifting the ....

D. E. Knuth, "On the Translation of Languages from Left to Right", Information and Control, Vol. 8, No. 6, December 1965, pp. 607--639

....1979 [13] The Fortran grammar has been described as neither LL or LR, or LL and not LR, or LR and not LL, or both LL and LR. All answers are partly correct. Fortran was written before the notion of regular expressions, and before context free grammars were derived. Fortran predates Knuth s [14] derivation of LR parsing by about 10 years. Fortunately, the LAPACK subset of Fortran 77 may be parsed LR(1) once the lexical structure has been determined. The yacc grammar was written using the Fortran77 standard [15] The grammar was implemented using the Bison parser generator, a yacc ....

D. E. Knuth. On the translation of languages from left to right. Information and Control, 8:6:607--639, 1965.

....have been proposed until now. Deterministic context free languages, which are defined by deterministic pushdown automata, are such ones [3] For this class and its several subclasses, many practically useful frameworks, such as LR(k) and LL(k) grammars, have been defined and investigated [7, 9, 10]. However, besides the subclasses of context free languages, there have been very few studies on language or grammar classes having this property. In this paper, we define a new class of generating grammars called uniquely parsable grammars (UPGs) and its three subclasses. A UPG is a grammar ....

....automata (DPDA) in a final state. Harrison and Havel [4] gave a grammatical characterization for a subclass of DCFLs accepted by DPDAs with empty stack. The full class of DCFLs is known to be equivalent to LR(k) grammars, but to determine whether a given grammar is LR(k) is rather complicated [7, 10]. Here, we prove that L[RC UPG] is equal to the class of languages accepted by DPDAs in a final state. Thus the class of RC UPGs gives a simple and exact grammatical characterization for the class of DCFLs. Definition 5.1 A rewriting rule of the following form is called a right terminating rule ....

Knuth, D.E.: On the translation of languages from left to right. Inf. Control 8, 607--639 (1965)

....E E E E ffl E E fflE E ffla E fflE E E E E a E E E E ffl E E ffl E E affl a E E ffl E E E E a a Figure 3: LR(0) goto graph for the grammar of example 5.3. 6 Intermezzo: From Earley to LR There is a close correspondence between Earley s algorithm and LR parsing [Knu65]. In fact, parsing schema 4.1 can also be considered the underlying parsing schema of an LR(0) parser. The main difference between the algorithms is that in LR parsing the instantiation of the parsing schema with a grammar is compiled into a transition table. Definition 6.1 defines a parsing ....

Donald E. Knuth. On the translation of languages from left to right. Information and Control, 8:607--639, 1965.

.... automata from regular expressions is of central importance to the compilation of communicating processes[4] string pattern matching[3] model checking[12] lexical scanning[2] and VLSI layout design[25] unit time incremental acceptance testing in a DFA is also a crucial step in LR k parsing[15]; algorithms for acceptance testing and DFA construction from regular expressions are implemented in the UNIX operating system[20] Throughout this paper we use a uniform cost sequential RAM[1] as our model of computaton. However, our algorithms will avoid any RAM operation with hidden costs (that ....

Knuth, D., "On the translation of languages from left to right", Information and Control, Vol. 8, Num. 6, 1965, pp. 607 - 639.

.... from Left to Right with k symbols look ahead if, given a phrase derived from a special start symbol, it is possible to identify the leftmost handle of the phrase looking at all the symbols to the left of the handle and at k symbols to the right of the handle (for some finite k)[17]. Definition: A grammar is called a BCP grammar Weak parseable with Bounded Context , if, given any phrase, it is possible to identify at least one handle of the phrase looking at m symbols to the left and n symbols to the right of the handle (for some finite m and n) 38] 2.2 Comparison ....

....parsing, it became more and more obvious that reading a program mainly from left to right and backing up a little bit in case something is unclear, is the natural way for a human being to read a program. Human beings are not good at switching between different states while reading. In contrast, as [17] observes, a computer can use state information easily and this allows different parsing algorithms. Robust parsing, seen from this perspective, is a step towards bringing the way a computer sees a program and the way a programmer sees the program closer together. Hopefully, it will make it easier ....

Donald E. Knuth. On the translation of languages from left to right. Information and Controll, 8:607--639, 1965.

..... 22 4.3 Conflict resolution by LookAround method . 24 5 Multi pass parsing 27 6 Further work and final comments 29 1 Introduction Conventional methods for parsing programming languages originated in the early research on context free grammars [2, 8, 12, 14]. They were developed as operator precedence methods [9] bounded context methods [10] LL parsing methods [15] LR parsing methods [6] A complete history of the work in this area is found in [1, 17] The conventional notion of a programming language evolved as the set of valid strings derivable ....

D.E. Knuth. On the translation of languages from left to right. Information and Control, 8(6):607--639, 1965.

....Automatic Programming Program Transformation; Program Synthesis General Terms: Algorithms, Experimentation, Languages, Performance Additional Key Words and Phrases: LR parsing, parser generation, partial evaluation, functional programming, continuations 1. INTRODUCTION LR parsing [Knuth 1965] is the predominant parsing technique in compiler front ends and other formal language processors. LR parsing is popular because many realistic grammars are immediately amenable to this technique. Also, several LR parser generators are readily available, most notably Yacc [Johnson 1975] However, ....

Knuth, D. E. 1965. On the translation of languages from left to right. Information and Control 8, 607--639.

....full generality. However, by weakening the noncanonical extension of the parser to constant sized paths, analagous to Knuth s LR(k; t) grammars, we can achieve a recursive class of grammars, which yield linear time, practical parsers. 1 Introduction The well known LR(k) parsing algorithm of Knuth [10] and its two major variations SLR(k) and LALR(k) due to DeRemer [5] are canonical in that they reduce only leftmost phrases or handles, with a constant (k) symbols of terminal lookahead. Such parsers can be implemented by a single stack machine with a constant sized parse table (a pushdown ....

....paper, we first survey the known methods of providing noncanonical extensions to LR parsers, then give a new class of grammars which provides bounded path LALR(1) lookahead to a noncanonical LR parsing automaton. This class is the obvious restriction of the noncanonical LR(k; t) class of Knuth [10]. The new work consists of an algorithm for constructing parsers for this class, definition of the properties and expressive power of the class, an extension of the NLR(k) undecidability proof of Szymanski and Williams to intuitively prove conjecture that the full generalization, the set of ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Donald Knuth, "On the translation of languages from left to right". Inf. Control 8 (1965), 607-639.

.... le. ffl pot. An interface to an underlying object management system. pot interfaces alchemist with an object management system (OMS) 2. 3 Spell construction The transformation speci cation is based on the user description of the source and target representations as context free lr grammars [Knu65] The actual transformation mapping is de ned as rules between the productions of these grammars. This approach has been adopted to avoid one of the most diOEcult problems in transformations: how to guarantee that the generated transformation representation has a syntactically correct structure. ....

....of alchemist, see the user guide [LT95] 2.4 Speci cation phase: specifying spells with spellbound The rst phase of building a spell includes giving its abstract speci cation. As discussed above, the structure of the source and target representations is de ned through contextfree lr grammars [Knu65] and a mapping between these grammars based on the tt grammar technique [KPPM84] In the following we assume that the reader is familiar with the basics of the compiler technology and understands the elementary notions of contextfree grammars such as productions, terminals, etc. An uninitiated ....

Donald E. Knuth. On the translation of languages from left to right. Information and Control, 8(6):607639, 1965.

No context found.

D.E. Knuth. On the translation of languages from left to right. Information and Control,8:607--639, 1965. 12

No context found.

D. E. Knuth. On the translation of languages from left to right. Information and Control, 8:607-639, 1965.

No context found.

D. E. Knuth, `On the translation of languages from left to right', Information and Control 8:6 (1965), 607--639.

No context found.

D. E. Knuth, `On the translation of languages from left to right', Information and Control 8:6 (1965), 607-639.

No context found.

D. E. Knuth. On the translation of languages from left to right. Information and Control, 8:607--639, 1965.

No context found.

Knuth, D.E., On the translation of languages from left to right, Information and Control, 8(6):607-639.

No context found.

D.E. Knuth. On the translation of languages from left to right. Inform. and Control, 8:607--639, 1965.

No context found.

Knuth,D.E.: On the translation of languages from left to right,Information and Control 8:6,pp.607-639

No context found.

Donald Knuth, `On the translation of languages from left to right', Information and Control, 8, 607--639 (1965).

No context found.

Knuth, D.E. 1965 On the Translation of Languages from Left to Right. Information and Control, 8: 607- 639.

No context found.

D. E. Knuth. On the Translation of Languages from Left to Right. Information and Control, 8:607#639, 1965.

No context found.

Donald E. Knuth (1965). On the translation of languages from left to right. Information and Control 8:6, 607-639.

No context found.

K nuth, I). E., On the Translation of Languages from Left to Right, in Information and Control, vol. 8, 1965.

No context found.

Donald E. Knuth. On the translation of languages from left to right. Information and Control, 8(6):607--639, dec 1965.

No context found.

Knuth, D.E. On translation of languages from left to right. Information and Control 8, 6 (1965), 607--639.

No context found.

Comm. ACM 18, 3, 151--157. Knuth, D. 1965. On translation of languages from left to right. Information and Control 8, 6, 607--639.

No context found.

D.E. Knuth. On the Translation of Languages from Left to Right. Information and Control, 8(6):607--639, 1965.

No context found.

Knuth, D.E. 1965 On the Translation of Languages from Left to Right. Information and Control, 8: 607-639.

No context found.

Knuth, D.E. (1965) "On the translation of languages from left to right," Information and Control 8.6, 607-639.

First 50 documents  Next 50

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC