2009/4/4 john skaller <skal...@users.sourceforge.net> > > On 05/04/2009, at 3:18 AM, Emmanuel Onzon wrote: > > >> Well computers can't "guess" .. so we need some rules and >> ways to break out. >> >> You can do inference with the available information. The same >> information that makes you able to know which Obj_* >> constructor to use when writing a user action for a new rule. >> So if you can generate the associated action to your new >> rule, then you know the implicit non terminal of each priority. >> >> > > Yes, the question is how.. now the *general* answer to that > is .. > > make the Felix meta-syntax extensible, that is, allow users > to write their own statements for adding new rules. > > I.e. second order extensibility. > > With Christophe Raffalli, we discussed about implicit >> disambiguating rules some times ago and concluded they >> make the parser difficult to understand. Maybe the sensible >> solution is just to forbid ambiguous programs and force the >> user to write unambiguous code using parenthesis when needed. >> > > In that case why bother with GLR? :) >
For unbounded lookahead : no shift/reduce conflict. > > > And allow users to make explicit disambiguating rules. >> >> Aging is problematic because when you import syntaxA >> and then syntaxB, you don't have the same behaviour of the >> parser than when importing syntaxB and then syntaxA. >> > > -- > > john skaller > skal...@users.sourceforge.net > > > > >
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Felix-language mailing list Felix-language@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/felix-language
