3 Jul 2003 23:31:48 -0400

Related articles |
---|

Recursive Descent vs. LALR JohnMResler@netscape.net (John Resler) (2003-06-20) |

Re: Recursive Descent vs. LALR bear@sonic.net (2003-06-25) |

Re: Recursive Descent vs. LALR cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2003-07-02) |

Re: Recursive Descent vs. LALR kamalpr@yahoo.com (2003-07-03) |

Re: Recursive Descent vs. LALR John.M.Resler@Boeing.com (Boeing) (2003-07-04) |

Re: Recursive Descent vs. LALR bear@sonic.net (2003-07-04) |

From: | kamalpr@yahoo.com (Kamal R. Prasad) |

Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |

Date: | 3 Jul 2003 23:31:48 -0400 |

Organization: | http://groups.google.com/ |

References: | 03-06-093 |

Keywords: | parse |

Posted-Date: | 03 Jul 2003 23:31:47 EDT |

John Resler <JohnMResler@netscape.net> wrote in message news:03-06-093...

*> I got halfway through a compiler theory course a few years back and*

*> finances required dropping out of school. Since then I've been messing*

*> around with Parsing tools and the like and have been using JavaCC. It is*

*> a recursive descent parser and I understand a bit of the way a Recursive*

*> Descent Parser works versus bottom up parsing. I seem to recall a*

*> theorem that said any LALR(K) grammar could be rewritten to an LALR(1)*

*> grammar and another theorem that said Recursive Descent versus LALR(1)*

*> were equally capable.*

Recursive descent parsing cannot resolve some conflicts that LALR(1)

can. In general, a rightmost derivation has been found to be more

useful in resolving ambiguities than a leftmost one. (Someone can

correct me if Im wrong).

regards

-kamal

Post a followup to this message

Return to the
comp.compilers page.

Search the
comp.compilers archives again.