From: wclodius@earthlink.net   
      
   > > LL(k) always can be refactored to single token lookahead, but it   
   > > causes an explosion of grammar states.  E.g., given a single LL(3)   
   > > rule, an equivalent set of LL(1) rules must match every valid   
   > > combination of tokens at +1, +2 and +3.   
   >   
   > Rosenkrantz and Stearns appeared to show otherwise,   
   >    
   > Do you know of a problem with their proof?   
   > See    
      
   This topic has appeared a number of times in this forum, but most of the   
   time people have had trouble coming up with a specific irreducable LL(k)   
   grammar. The above link however appears to be such a grammar.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)