| > It's possible that C++ doesn't require unbounded lookahead | | No, it's not. | In fact, if you'd read the language grammar definition, you'd discover | you could pretty produce the anti-program with some work. | That given any k, it produces a C++ program that cannot be parsed with | an LR(k) parser. | | Unless you are going to refute that this is possible (and it has been | done before, so trying to refute it would just make you look sily), this | proves that C++ is not an LR(k) language.
Then the final solution with better compilation space-time and valid grammar is to kill the evil standard C++ and to make a new standard D++ compatible with LALR(1) or LL(1) languages. (e.g. as Delphi or Object Pascal but using the C/C++-like style) Good bye.
