Loring Craymer wrote:
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
Which is a better way of explaining it in fact ;-) as it probably
explains the left factoring requirements better.
Jim
--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
