Nikolay Ognyanov wrote: > Well, there is nothing else that the extra SUFFIX can belong to > according to the > grammar so this is not derivation/parsing of the statement per the grammar.
ANTLR makes no assumptions where to stop, as when it is in a "deeper" rule, it does not know what path it took. The generated code for expr2 can't tell whether it's possible that it will be followed by a SUFFIX (it's 'follow set' is undetermined). There's no real concept of a "start rule" definable in a grammar, although inclusion of EOF makes some improvements. > 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 >> >> --Loring -- Sam Barnett-Cormack List: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-interest Unsubscribe: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/options/antlr-interest/your-email-address --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
