LL(1) C grammar

[J. Horsmeier]

In article <20726 at crdgw1.crd.ge.com> volpe at camelback.crd.ge.com (Christopher R Volpe) writes:
>In article <18959 at prometheus.megatest.UUCP>, djones at megatest.UUCP (Dave
>Jones) writes:
>|>Huh? There's nothing that can be done with an LL parser
>|>that can't be done with an LR parser. What do you mean by "interpretation
>|>versus compilation, incremental parser building etc"?
>          
>Isn't is just much more convenient to deal with a LR grammar? It's true
>that any LR(1) grammar can be converted to an equivalent LL(1) grammar 
[...]
>and the resulting productions don't look much like anything one could associate
>meaningful and intuitive action routines to. Am I missing something?
>
>==================
>Chris Volpe
>G.E. Corporate R&D
>volpecr at crd.ge.com

Nope, you've missed nothing, you're right and so is Dave Jones. 
But I have to work with a parser generator that just eats LL(1) grammars. sigh! :-(

On the other hand, it *is* a nice thing to work with.

Jos

ps

You guys outthere are actually helping me, I got a mial (mial?) mail
with a few pointers to LL(1) C grammars (at last!).

|O   J.A. Horsmeier AND Software B.V.        phone : +31 10 4367100   O|
|O                  Westersingel 106/108     fax   : +31 10 4367110   O|
|O                  3015 LD  Rotterdam NL    e-mail: jos at and.nl       O|