[antlr-interest] Why i need to use LL(*) ????

[Juancarlo Añez]

On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 2:30 AM, Umesh Kalappa <umesh.kalappa0 at gmail.com>wrote:

> Just wondering in this case then ,Could i say that LL(*) = LALR(*) ?????
>

That is a theoretical question that doesn't help much on the practice of
building useful parsers.

The answer is LR > LL.

But it is common knowledge that LR is too difficult to work with when
compared with LL implemented as top-down with lookahead and/or backtracking.

-- 
Juancarlo *Añez*