> On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 05:27:43PM -0000, Simon Marlow wrote: > > > > '(' exp(i+1) op(a,i) ')' > > '(' op(a,i) exp(i+1) ')' > > > > '(' lexp(i) op(l,i) ')' > > '(' op(r,i) rexp(i) ')' > > > > And for the sake of fewer ambiguities, replace each op(a,i) > with op(n,i) > > in the existing two section productions. > > (+ 5) would not then be valid.
Oops, quite right. Then we should follow the example of the lexp/rexp productions: '(' (lexp(i) | exp(i+1)) op(l,i) ')' '(' op(r,i) (rexp(i) | exp(i+1)) ')' '(' op(n,i) exp(i+1) ')' '(' exp(i+1) op(n,i) ')' Yeuch. The grammar would be much more readable (not to mention parseable) if fixity resolution was described seperately. Cheers, Simon _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-bugs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-bugs