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

Scott Stanchfield <scooter@mccabe.com>
18 Dec 1995 19:11:57 -0500

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[20 earlier articles]
Re: LL(1) vs LALR(1) parsers mparks@oz.net (1995-12-09)
Re: LL(1) vs LALR(1) parsers maatwerk@euronet.nl (1995-12-09)
Re: LL(1) vs LALR(1) parsers sperber@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de (Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor]) (1995-12-09)
Re: LL(1) vs LALR(1) parsers mparks@oz.net (1995-12-12)
Re: LL(1) vs LALR(1) parsers solution@gate.net (1995-12-16)
Re: LL(1) vs LALR(1) parsers sb@metis.no (1995-12-17)
Re: LL(1) vs LALR(1) parsers scooter@mccabe.com (Scott Stanchfield) (1995-12-18)
Re: LL(1) vs LALR(1) parsers G.A.Tijssen@eco.RUG.NL (Gert A. Tijssen) (1995-12-19)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Scott Stanchfield <scooter@mccabe.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 18 Dec 1995 19:11:57 -0500
Organization: McCabe & Associates
References: 95-11-051 95-11-231 95-12-075
Keywords: parse, LL(1)

Tables can be used for quite a bit, but when it comes to debugging a
parser you have written, they can be incredibly obtuse.


An LL(k) recursive-descent parser (hand-coded or generated by a tool
like ANTLR in PCCTS) is easy to understand and debug.)


(I wonder if Interplay has though about Recursive Descent?)


-- Scott
Scott Stanchfield McCabe & Associates -- Columbia, Maryland
--

Post a followup to this message

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