If a Context-Free Grammar has no left-recursion and is left-factored, is it GUARANTEED to be LL(1)?
Eliminating left-recursion and left-factoring removes obvious LL(1) conflicts, but FOLLOW set overlaps or subtle lookahead ambiguities can still prevent a grammar from being LL(1).
What is the mathematical definition of a 'Context-Free Grammar' (Type-2 in Chomsky Hierarchy)?
Context-free grammar rules have a single non-terminal on the left-hand side (A -> $\gamma) without surrounding contextual constraints$.
What is the difference between SLR(1) and LALR(1) parsing tables?
SLR(1) reduces using global FOLLOW sets; LALR(1) reduces using precise propagated LR(1) item lookaheads.
What is an 'Operator Grammar'?
Operator grammars prohibit empty productions ($\epsilon$) and adjacent non-terminals (e.g., E -> E + E is allowed, but A -> B C is prohibited).
In YACC/BISON, what does %nonassoc directive specify for an operator?
%nonassoc specifies that binary operations using the operator cannot be chained without explicit parentheses (e.g., x < y < z is invalid).