|LL vs LR references sought email@example.com (1996-09-06)|
|Re: LL vs LR references sought firstname.lastname@example.org (1996-09-15)|
|Re: LL vs LR references sought email@example.com (Markus Armbruster) (1996-09-15)|
|From:||firstname.lastname@example.org (Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor])|
|Date:||6 Sep 1996 10:01:52 -0400|
I'm looking for references to published material arguing one or
several of the following points:
- LL parsers are easier to write by hand than LR parsers
- recursive-descent LL parsers are easier to read than table-driven
- LL parsers allow for better error recovery than LR parsers
- LL parsers are inherently faster than LR parsers
- LL parsing allows for on-the-fly evaluation of attributes for
L-attributed grammars whereas LR parsers can only do S-attributed ones
- programming languages with syntax that is not LL should be changed so
that they are
Note that I'm aware that there was extensive discussion of this on
comp.compilers before, and I don't want to start that again. I'm
merely looking for references.
Cheers =8-} Mike
[Like he said, send references. Messages along the lines of "LL is gnarlier"
will vanish without a trace. -John]
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.