Re: Recursive Descent vs. LALR

kamalpr@yahoo.com (Kamal R. Prasad)
3 Jul 2003 23:31:48 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Recursive Descent vs. LALR JohnMResler@netscape.net (John Resler) (2003-06-20)
Re: Recursive Descent vs. LALR bear@sonic.net (2003-06-25)
Re: Recursive Descent vs. LALR cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2003-07-02)
Re: Recursive Descent vs. LALR kamalpr@yahoo.com (2003-07-03)
Re: Recursive Descent vs. LALR John.M.Resler@Boeing.com (Boeing) (2003-07-04)
Re: Recursive Descent vs. LALR bear@sonic.net (2003-07-04)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: kamalpr@yahoo.com (Kamal R. Prasad)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 3 Jul 2003 23:31:48 -0400
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
References: 03-06-093
Keywords: parse
Posted-Date: 03 Jul 2003 23:31:47 EDT

John Resler <JohnMResler@netscape.net> wrote in message news:03-06-093...
> I got halfway through a compiler theory course a few years back and
> finances required dropping out of school. Since then I've been messing
> around with Parsing tools and the like and have been using JavaCC. It is
> a recursive descent parser and I understand a bit of the way a Recursive
> Descent Parser works versus bottom up parsing. I seem to recall a
> theorem that said any LALR(K) grammar could be rewritten to an LALR(1)
> grammar and another theorem that said Recursive Descent versus LALR(1)
> were equally capable.


Recursive descent parsing cannot resolve some conflicts that LALR(1)
can. In general, a rightmost derivation has been found to be more
useful in resolving ambiguities than a leftmost one. (Someone can
correct me if Im wrong).


regards
-kamal


Post a followup to this message

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