Why would we want more than LALR(1)?

[steveL]

For a programming-language, can anyone give examples of how a grammar that is more complex than standard LALR(1), would actually interest a working programmer?
ie: examples of syntactic constructs, that cannot be parsed by LALR(1); note that LL(1) is a subset (recursion rewrite notwithstanding.)

They must actually enable something useful, that we cannot get currently, sufficient for us to say "yeah, that's worth the hassle."
That ad-hoc language X has some construct or other, does not count in and of itself: it must actually be something you consider useful, preferably essential, that could not be more simply-expressed.

In a decade on IRC, and many people rambling on about GLL etc, I have yet to see what's so spiffy about it all.
Pardon my ignorance if it's all rather obvious (just enlighten me, though: don't emphasise my limitations. ;)

[v_andal]

Well, this sounds like a very funny question to me. Your criteria is "interest a working programmer" and that thing really depends on the taste of particular programmer. So, you'll end up arguing if something is of any "interest" or not. That is as funny as arguing about "taste of chicken" For example, I'm a working programmer that has "interest" only in pure C and Assembler. And I don't really understand why people might be interested in C++, Rust, or any other stuff. But people do find those languages very useful. To me it appears, that people can have "interest" in all kinds of stuff that I consider to be completely useless. So, quite possible that there are a lot of "working programmers" out there that have "interest" in constructs that can not be parsed by LALR(1). To you, those constructs would seem to be useless and boring. Tastes differ, you know

[steveL]

So basically what you are saying is: I don't use any such language, but if I did, it would be entirely subjective what I found useful.

The latter seems rather self-evident, and is not the problem you make it out to be; the subjective experience is precisely what I am asking about.

The notion that I would argue about that, is ludicrous.

Sure I might not find it of interest, but that's neither here nor there in terms of arguing with someone about their feelings, a completely futile exercise.

If you are not interested in the discussion, then by all means ignore it.
To a certain extent, it is meant to be self-selecting, as in if you don't know what LALR(1) means, then it's not going to be very interesting to you. (hence the subject line.)
OTOH someone like mv, knows exactly what is under discussion, without further explanation.

I'm not trying to be unfriendly, or grumpy; I'm just not interested in meta-discussion, or discussion about the discussion, and not the substantive topic.

Whatever my personal feelings on a construct, I would never expect a fellow Gentoo user to stop using something they liked because of my opinion, nor even to give that much of a damn what my opinion would be, if they liked it. That's kind of standard for the forums: use what you want, and we discuss bits that others might find useful. If not, who cares.
Specifically on languages, I concur with the Perl community's Tim Toady; There's More Than One Way To Do It.

Thanks for understanding.

[ArneBab]

I just hit this while searching for rust, and I found it interesting. It caused me to look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GLR_parser

An practical answer could be: When parsing javascript (ECMAscript) with Guile, I see lots of shift/reduce conflicts.

Another answer could be: We could go for more natural languages: A smaller core vocabulary could describe more structures when we allow for more (temporary) ambiguity.

Examples:

[Ant P.]