Re: LL vs LR references sought

: 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


Try


        ftp://ftp.parr-research.com/pub/pccts/documents/manual.ps


        ftp://ftp.parr-research.com/pub/pccts/parr.phd.thesis.ps.gz


The former is the manual for PCCTS, the latter is Terence Parr's (author
of PCCTS) Ph.D. thesis. Since PCCTS is a prime example of many of the
properties you suggested, these are probably good places to look.
(Well, I *know* the manual boasts about the benefits of LL a lot, but I
haven't read the thesis and merely suspect that it does.)


                Greg


--
Greg Ward - Research Assistant greg@bic.mni.mcgill.ca
Brain Imaging Centre (WB201) voice: (514) 398-4965 (or 1996)
Montreal Neurological Institute fax: (514) 398-8948
Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3A 2B4
--

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