Not true; your example can be interpreted either as (expr1: PREFIX_1 (expr2: PREFIX_2 SUFFIX) SUFFIX )
or as (expr1: PREFIX_1 (expr2: PREFIX_2) SUFFIX) SUFFIX with the extra SUFFIX belonging to something else --Loring > >From: Nikolay Ognyanov <[email protected]> >To: Jim Idle <[email protected]> >Cc: [email protected] >Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 3:28:16 PM >Subject: Re: [antlr-interest] Why and how exactly does ANTLR manage to fail on >non recursive grammar for finite language? >By definition a grammar is ambiguous if there is more than 1 way to >derive at least one statement. >>This is not the case here. There is only 1 way to derive the offending >statement > >>PREFIX_1 PREFIX_2 SUFFIX SUFFIX > >>And it would take the procedure for expr2 just about 3 tokens lookahead >to figure out what is the >>right thing to do. The question is why ANTLR does not do this? > >>Regards >>Nikolay > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "il-antlr-interest" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/il-antlr-interest?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
List: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-interest Unsubscribe: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/options/antlr-interest/your-email-address
