Python 3.5 的语法是 LL(1) 吗？
Is Python 3.5's grammar LL(1)?
我看到 http://matt.might.net/teaching/compilers/spring-2015/ 说 Python 3.4 是 LL(1)
Python3.5 的语法是否仍然是 LL(1)，因此可以编写递归下降解析器？
是的。这是一种故意的语言特性，而不仅仅是碰巧发生的事情。 PEP 3099 明确地 拒绝 对 Python 2 -> 3 转换的任何更改（比任何 3.x -> [=17 转换明显更大） =] 将是):
The parser won't be more complex than LL(1).
Simple is better than complex. This idea extends to the parser. Restricting Python's grammar to an LL(1) parser is a blessing, not a
curse. It puts us in handcuffs that prevent us from going overboard
and ending up with funky grammar rules like some other dynamic
languages that will go unnamed, such as Perl.
我看到 http://matt.might.net/teaching/compilers/spring-2015/ 说 Python 3.4 是 LL(1)
Python3.5 的语法是否仍然是 LL(1)，因此可以编写递归下降解析器？
是的。这是一种故意的语言特性，而不仅仅是碰巧发生的事情。 PEP 3099 明确地 拒绝 对 Python 2 -> 3 转换的任何更改（比任何 3.x -> [=17 转换明显更大） =] 将是):
The parser won't be more complex than LL(1).
Simple is better than complex. This idea extends to the parser. Restricting Python's grammar to an LL(1) parser is a blessing, not a curse. It puts us in handcuffs that prevent us from going overboard and ending up with funky grammar rules like some other dynamic languages that will go unnamed, such as Perl.