|recursive parsers and FOLLOW sets email@example.com (KB Sriram) (1996-03-20)|
|Re: recursive parsers and FOLLOW sets firstname.lastname@example.org (1996-03-22)|
|Re: recursive parsers and FOLLOW sets email@example.com (1996-03-22)|
|From:||KB Sriram <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||20 Mar 1996 23:28:08 -0500|
When generating recursive descent parsers from LL(1) grammars, are
FOLLOW sets needed for anything other than detecting syntax errors
"quicker" and error repair/recovery?
Specifically, if all I want is a parser that is able to identify valid
(and invalid :-) sentences, whats the gotcha with generating a
function for a "nullable" non-terminal that would match null and
return on finding a token that wasn't in its FIRST set, and leave any
error detection to procedures further up in the call stack?
PS: Apologies for asking such a basic question here, but the
dragon book only describes the algorithm, and this is the other
best reference I know :)
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.