4 added 13 characters in body; edited tags

If I have a Type 3 Grammar, it can be represented on a pushdown automaton (without doing any operation on the stack) so I can represent regexpregular expressions by using context free languages. But can I know if a type 3 grammar is $$LR(1)$$, $$LL(1)$$, $$SLR(1)$$, etc. without constructing any parse tables?

If I have a Type 3 Grammar, it can be represented on a pushdown automaton (without doing any operation on the stack) so I can represent regexp by using context free languages. But can I know if a type 3 grammar is $$LR(1)$$, $$LL(1)$$, $$SLR(1)$$, etc. without constructing any parse tables?

If I have a Type 3 Grammar, it can be represented on a pushdown automaton (without doing any operation on the stack) so I can represent regular expressions by using context free languages. But can I know if a type 3 grammar is $$LR(1)$$, $$LL(1)$$, $$SLR(1)$$, etc. without constructing any parse tables?

3 TeX-ified.

Are regular expressions LR$LR(k)$?

If I have a Type 3 Grammar, it can be represented on a pushdown automaton (without doing any operation on the stack) so I can represent regexp by using context free languages. But can I know if a type 3 grammar is LR(1)/LL(1)/SLR(1)[..$$LR(1)$$, $$LL(1)$$, $$SLR(1)$$, etc.] without doingconstructing any parse tabletables?

Are regular expressions LR(k)?

If I have a Type 3 Grammar, it can be represented on a pushdown automaton (without doing any operation on the stack) so I can represent regexp by using context free languages. But can I know if a type 3 grammar is LR(1)/LL(1)/SLR(1)[...] without doing any parse table?

Are regular expressions $LR(k)$?

If I have a Type 3 Grammar, it can be represented on a pushdown automaton (without doing any operation on the stack) so I can represent regexp by using context free languages. But can I know if a type 3 grammar is $$LR(1)$$, $$LL(1)$$, $$SLR(1)$$, etc. without constructing any parse tables?

2 edited tags
Post Migrated Here from stackoverflow.com
1