Re: LL(1) vs LALR(1) parsers

I want to add two ideas to this discussion:


About quality of error recovery:
Most errors are NOT detected in the parser, but afterwards. Errors
detected by the parser are of the kind 'missing something" and in
those cases there is no need for clever recovery - the program is
simply wrong, so just skip the statement. Therefore, in my
opinion error recovery is no argument for selection of the
right type of grammar.


For those in favor of handwritten parsers: I also like them
because they are so easy to understand and fast. But first
checking a grammer with yacc and then retyping it as code is
double work. Wouldn't everyone be happy with a simple generator
that checks the unattributed grammar and then generates a
recursive-descent parser that you can fill in by hand? Does
this exist?


Mauk van der Laan
--

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.