[antlr-interest] Why i need to use LL(*) ????
Juancarlo Añez
apalala at gmail.com
Wed Sep 5 06:16:29 PDT 2012
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*
More information about the antlr-interest
mailing list