Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utcsri.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!coatta
From: coatta@utcsri.UUCP (Terry Coatta)
Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga
Subject: Re: Recursive descent compilers (from Re: Amiga OS)
Message-ID: <2100@utcsri.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 11-Feb-86 11:00:30 EST
Article-I.D.: utcsri.2100
Posted: Tue Feb 11 11:00:30 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 11-Feb-86 11:25:45 EST
References: <256@sdcc7.UUCP>
Reply-To: coatta@utcsri.UUCP (Terry Coatta)
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Lines: 14
Summary: 

In article <256@sdcc7.UUCP> ma168abq@sdcc7.UUCP (Daniel T. Lau) writes:
>HAH!!!
>Why does recursive descent have better error recovery than LL(1)
>parsers?? It doesn't.  What matters is how the programmer implements
>error handling/recovery.  It is easier to implement error recovery
>using Recursive Descent parsing,  but if you understand LL(1)

>THE REAL ADVANTAGE OF AN LL(1) PARSER IS THAT IT ACCEPTS AS INPUT A
>WIDER RANGE OF LANGUAGES THAN A RECURSIVE DESCENT PARSER WOULD. 
>
>Larry D. Laus

It was my impression that all LL(1) grammars can be parsed by recursive
descent -- have I missed something?