Contents

Follow SetsEdit

Follow sets are a foundational concept in the theory of formal languages and in practical compiler construction. For every nonterminal in a grammar, the follow set collects the terminals that can legally appear immediately after that nonterminal in some sentential form. Together with the first sets, follow sets guide the decisions a parser makes when reading input, helping to convert a grammar into a workable parsing strategy. In many explanations, this notion is introduced inside the framework of a context-free grammar context-free grammar and the machinery of parsing theory First set and LL(1) parsing.

The idea is not merely academic. In a typical compiler pipeline, the follow set of a nonterminal A informs where productions involving A may be reduced or how a top-down parser should proceed with the next input token. This is especially true for LL(1) parsing, where a single lookahead token guides decisions, and for tools that build predictive parsers from grammars. The end-of-input marker, often represented as $, is also considered part of follow sets for the start symbol, ensuring that the parser knows when to stop reading input. See how these ideas connect to practical parsing machinery in parsing and compiler discussions.

Follow Sets

Formal definition

Let G = (N, T, P, S) be a grammar, with N the set of nonterminals, T the set of terminals, P the set of productions, and S the start symbol. The follow set of a nonterminal A ∈ N, denoted Follow(A), is defined as the set of terminals a ∈ T such that there exists a derivation S =>* αAβ =>* αaβ for some α, β ∈ (N ∪ T)*, where a ∈ T, or where β is empty and a is the end-of-input marker $. In short, Follow(A) consists of all terminals that can immediately follow A in some sentential form, with $ included for the start symbol. This concept is used alongside the First set (First set) to resolve parsing choices.

Computation

Computing follow sets relies on first sets and an iterative fixpoint procedure. A common approach:

  • Compute FIRST(X) for all symbols X in N ∪ T, with FIRST for terminals equal to the terminal itself and FIRST for nonterminals computed from productions.
  • Initialize Follow(S) with { $ } and all other Follow(A) as empty.
  • For each production B → αAβ, add FIRST(β) \ { ε } to Follow(A).
  • If β can derive ε (i.e., ε ∈ FIRST(β)) or if β is empty, add Follow(B) to Follow(A).
  • Repeat until no Follow set changes.

This algorithm underpins the generation of predictive parsing tables and the analysis of grammars for determinism. See how this process interacts with First set computations and grammars like those discussed in context-free grammar treatments.

Example

Consider a simple grammar for arithmetic expressions:

  • S → E
  • E → E + T | T
  • T → T * F | F
  • F → ( E ) | id

A hand-on walk-through shows how Follow(E), Follow(T), and Follow(F) emerge. In particular, because S derives E and the input can end after E, the end-of-input marker $ appears in Follow(E). The strings derived from the grammar demonstrate which tokens may legally follow each nonterminal in various contexts, and this information feeds the construction of an LL(1) parsing table. For background on the symbols involved, see nonterminal and terminal.

Relationship to parsing and grammar design

Follow sets are part of the toolkit used to turn a grammar into a deterministic parser, particularly in the LL family of parsers that read input left-to-right with a single lookahead. They are also relevant in broader forms of analysis, including tools that check for grammar ambiguity and that aid in syntax-directed translation. See parsing and LL(1) parsing for related concepts and applications.

Controversies and debates

In discussions about computing curricula and language design, follow sets sit at the intersection of theory and practice. Proponents of a theory-first approach argue that a deep understanding of how grammars constrain parsing leads to robust language design, better compilers, and clearer syntax analyses. They point to follow sets as a concrete, teachable instance of how local decisions (which terminal can follow A) affect global determinism in a parser.

Critics, particularly those advocating more project- or industry-oriented curricula, sometimes contend that grammars and their formal properties can seem overly abstract for many software roles. They argue that exposure to real-world language tooling, parser generators, and domain-specific languages should emphasize pragmatic skills over algebraic properties that rarely show up directly in production code. In defense, supporters contend that even practical tools rely on solid theory: the reliability of a parser, the ability to diagnose conflicts, and the predictability of parsing tables hinge on these foundational ideas.

Woke criticisms of computer science education sometimes claim that emphasis on theory can hinder access or broaden participation if curricula appear opaque or disconnected from immediate job outcomes. From a pragmatic standpoint, however, the counterargument is that solid fundamentals equip engineers to adapt to a range of languages and tools, reducing a mismatch between education and industry needs. The best position, many would argue, is to blend theory with applied practice: teach the follow-set logic in a hands-on way while pairing it with modern parser generators and real-world language design problems. In this framing, the value of rigorous theory remains clear for building durable skills and for understanding how parsing advances support reliable software systems.

See also