LL vs LR references sought

sperber@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de (Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor])
6 Sep 1996 10:01:52 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
LL vs LR references sought sperber@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de (1996-09-06)
Re: LL vs LR references sought greg@bic.mni.mcgill.ca (1996-09-15)
Re: LL vs LR references sought armbru@pond.sub.org (Markus Armbruster) (1996-09-15)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: sperber@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de (Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor])
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 6 Sep 1996 10:01:52 -0400
Organization: Wilhelm-Schickard-Institut, Kakerlakenzuchtverein
Keywords: parse, question

Hi,


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
    LR parsers
- 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]


--

Post a followup to this message

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