Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!decvax!yale!husc6!necntc!ima!johnl
From: blia.UUCP!irving@cgl.ucsf.edu (Irving Reid)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Subject: Re: Recursive-descent parser generator wanted
Message-ID: <895@ima.ISC.COM>
Date: 25 Feb 88 22:16:29 GMT
References: <887@ima.ISC.COM>
Sender: johnl@ima.ISC.COM
Reply-To: blia.UUCP!irving@cgl.ucsf.edu (Irving Reid)
Organization: Britton Lee
Lines: 19
Summary: Actually, why one might want recursive descent
Approved: compilers@ima.UUCP

In article <887@ima.ISC.COM> the moderator remarks:
>[At the risk of much flamage, I'd be interested in comments about why one
>might prefer an R.D. parser generator to an LR one.  We've beaten error
>recovery to death, unless someone has something genuinely new.  -John]

One of my reasons for choosing R-D parsers is the ease of writing semantics
using full attribute handling.  I have some ideas about how a lazy
programming language (like Miranda) might allow inherited attributes in an
LR parser, but until that day I'll stick to R-D for anything that has
relatively tricky semantics (read this as: anything much beyond creating a
parse tree)

 - irving -
[From blia.UUCP!irving@cgl.ucsf.edu (Irving Reid)]
--
Send compilers articles to ima!compilers or, in a pinch, to Levine@YALE.EDU
Plausible paths are { ihnp4 | decvax | cbosgd | harvard | yale | bbn}!ima
Please send responses to the originator of the message -- I cannot forward
mail accidentally sent back to compilers.  Meta-mail to ima!compilers-request