[il-antlr-interest: 33305] Re: [antlr-interest] Deciphering the TreeWalker error message ...
Hi Folks, I take on board the unanimous input that the tree grammar rule should start with TOKEN. However what keeps me puzzled is that, inspite of having all my rules intact and just slightly rejigging my alternatives make the tree grammar parse the input tree perfectly fine. I am able to parse huge SQL of about 160 lines with many many expressions fine! Also wouldn't the following expression ^(^(SUB_EXPR A) B) simply mean that we have a simple list of subtree followed by a node B that is rooted at a nil node? I was under the impression that the above syntax is valid as 1. There is a mention of tree simulation like ^( nil ^(VARDEF int i) ^(VARDEF int j) ) in page 167/372 in the chapter Proper AST Structure in Definitive ANTLR Reference. 2. ANTLR doesn't report any error while compiling. 3. The grammar works for most test cases involving expression. Thanks, Vasan On 7/21/2011 10:06 PM, Kevin J. Cummings wrote: On 07/21/2011 02:48 AM, Gary Miller wrote: 3. rule : ^(subrule otherrule) ; Just looks wrong. I am under the impression that a treewalker rule should be rooted in a TOKEN, not a subtree. The few treewalker grammars I have written always have rules that look like ^(TOKEN some other rules or TOKENS) If a subrule reference is not allowed to be the root of the tree being parsed, I would have thought that ANTLR would have issued an error when the tree grammar was run through ANTLR I could be wrong with my assumption here, but I have never gotten into trouble by assuming it (so far). Often this involves me collapsing my treewalker rules together. For example, if I have 12 parse rules to accurately describe precidence in an expression, my treegrammar might have 12 alternations, one for each possibly different rooted TOKEN when walking them. This makes my treegrammars (much) smaller than my parser grammars. If you inline (expand) out what you have written you would get compoundExpression : ^((SUB_EXPR ^(PAREN_SCLAR_EXPRESSION sclarExpression+) conversion_clause ) ; The ^(( is impossible Make all you start tree look like ^(TOKEN ...) ^(sign sse=sclarSubExpression) therefore also look wrong. Yes, treegrammar rules can refer to other rules, but the rooted expressions: ^() should be rooted with TOKENs. 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 il-antlr-inter...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to il-antlr-interest+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/il-antlr-interest?hl=en.
[il-antlr-interest: 33271] Re: [antlr-interest] Deciphering the TreeWalker error message ...
Hey Grey,
Yes you are absolutely right, the first element is a rule reference.
My sclarSubExpression snippet is as follows:-
sclarSubExpression
:
^(SUB_EXPR ^(sign sse=sclarSubExpression))
| ^(SUB_EXPR expressionWithParen)
| ^(SUB_EXPR function)
| ^(SUB_EXPR object_name)
| ^(SUB_EXPR constant)
| ^(SUB_EXPR coalesce_exp)
| ^(SUB_EXPR nullif_exp)
| ^(SUB_EXPR case_expression)
;
expressionWithParen
:
^(PAREN_SCLAR_EXPRESSION sclarExpression+)
;
The toStringTree AST is also provided below:
Works:-
--
DML_STATEMENT DOWN select DOWN SELECT_LIST DOWN SELECT_ITEM DOWN
COMPOUND_EXPR DOWN SUB_EXPR DOWN PAREN_SCLAR_EXPRESSION DOWN
COMPOUND_EXPR DOWN SUB_EXPR DOWN 1 UP UP UP UP UP UP UP from DOWN
TABLE_LIST_ITEM DOWN TABLE_OR_VIEW_NAME DOWN table1 UP UP UP where DOWN
CONDITION_LIST DOWN between DOWN COMPOUND_EXPR DOWN SUB_EXPR DOWN 2 UP
UP and DOWN COMPOUND_EXPR DOWN SUB_EXPR DOWN 3 UP UP COMPOUND_EXPR DOWN
SUB_EXPR DOWN 4 UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP
Parser AST Tree : (DML_STATEMENT (select (SELECT_LIST (SELECT_ITEM
(COMPOUND_EXPR (SUB_EXPR (PAREN_SCLAR_EXPRESSION (COMPOUND_EXPR
(SUB_EXPR 1))) (from (TABLE_LIST_ITEM (TABLE_OR_VIEW_NAME table1)))
(where (CONDITION_LIST (between (COMPOUND_EXPR (SUB_EXPR 2)) (and
(COMPOUND_EXPR (SUB_EXPR 3)) (COMPOUND_EXPR (SUB_EXPR 4
Fails:
---
DML_STATEMENT DOWN select DOWN SELECT_LIST DOWN SELECT_ITEM DOWN
COMPOUND_EXPR DOWN SUB_EXPR DOWN PAREN_SCLAR_EXPRESSION DOWN
COMPOUND_EXPR DOWN SUB_EXPR DOWN 1 UP UP UP UP UP UP UP from DOWN
TABLE_LIST_ITEM DOWN TABLE_OR_VIEW_NAME DOWN table1 UP UP UP where DOWN
CONDITION_LIST DOWN between DOWN COMPOUND_EXPR DOWN SUB_EXPR DOWN 2 UP
UP and DOWN COMPOUND_EXPR DOWN SUB_EXPR DOWN 3 UP UP COMPOUND_EXPR DOWN
SUB_EXPR DOWN 4 UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP
Parser AST Tree : (DML_STATEMENT (select (SELECT_LIST (SELECT_ITEM
(COMPOUND_EXPR (SUB_EXPR (PAREN_SCLAR_EXPRESSION (COMPOUND_EXPR
(SUB_EXPR 1))) (from (TABLE_LIST_ITEM (TABLE_OR_VIEW_NAME table1)))
(where (CONDITION_LIST (between (COMPOUND_EXPR (SUB_EXPR 2)) (and
(COMPOUND_EXPR (SUB_EXPR 3)) (COMPOUND_EXPR (SUB_EXPR 4
Thanks for spending your valuable time looking into this issue.
Regards,
Vasan
On 7/21/2011 11:23 AM, Gary Miller wrote:
Hey Vasan,
Without seeing the reset of the tree walker grammar and the toStringTree of
the AST I'm really just guessing.
The rule looks a bit odd to me.
All my tree walker rules look more like
compoundExpression
:
^(SOMETOKEN conversion_clause)
| sclarSubExpression
;
I guess you can have rules as the first element of a tree, its just not
something that turns up in my tree grammars.
Regards
Gary
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 3:29 PM, srinivasan karthikeyan pitchai
srinivasan.karthikeyan.pitc...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Folks,
I forgot to mention. The compoundExpression rule has options{backtrack
= true;} set that is it reads like
compoundExpression
options {backtrack = true;}
:
^(sclarSubExpression conversion_clause)
| sclarSubExpression
;
Thanks,
Vasan
On 7/21/2011 10:56 AM, srinivasan karthikeyan pitchai wrote:
Jim, Gray, Loring,
Thanks for pitching in to give me some direction to focus on.
ANTLR Gurus,
I've solved the issue. Still I am unable to reason out my fix.
I am providing the offending grammar snippet below and would appreciate
your rationale to get an insight into the problem and how the fix works!!
The below rule fails with the
no viable alt; token=[@-1,0:0='DOWN' error message
compoundExpression:
^(sclarSubExpression conversion_clause)
| sclarSubExpression
;
However when I change the rule like the following, i.e make the
conversion_clause optional and then remove the second alternative every
thing works fine!! In my mind both the rules are semantically identical.
compoundExpression:
^(sclarSubExpression conversion_clause?)
;
Thanks a ton.
-Vasan
On 7/21/2011 4:16 AM, Jim Idle wrote:
Or use the dot description producing methods and create a nice graphic
with graphviz. Much easier to see that way.
Jim
-Original Message-
From: antlr-interest-boun...@antlr.org [mailto:antlr-interest-
boun...@antlr.org] On Behalf Of Gary Miller
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 3:44 PM
To: antlr-interest@antlr.org
Subject: Re: [antlr-interest] Deciphering the TreeWalker error message
...
I often find it usefully to print out the AST (toStringTree in Java)
and walk through the tree grammar manually.
Regards
Gary
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 3:15 AM, Loring Craymerlgcray...@yahoo.com
wrote:
UP and DOWN tokens (start/end of child list for tree) do not have
location information attached so no line/column error reporting.
Mostly the error says that you started a subtree that your grammar
does not match, probably an LPAREN or RPAREN rooted subtree from your
report of cases where you do or do not get the error.
--Loring
[il-antlr-interest: 33243] [antlr-interest] Deciphering the TreeWalker error message ...
Hi Folks,
What does the ANTLR walker error message like the following mean?
no viable alt; token=[@-1,0:0='DOWN'
Would appreciate any general guidance/suggestions to zero in on the
errors of this nature.
Thanks,
Vasan
Input sql:
---
select (1) from table1
where 2 between 3 and 4;
Error Message:
TDWalker1.g: node from after line 2:8 [start1, startStatement, dml,
query_term, query_expression, query, query_unit, where_clause,
condition_list, condition_subexpression, condition] Walker1: no viable
alt; token=[@-1,0:0='DOWN',2,0:-1] (decision=127 state 0)
decision=590:1: condition options {backtrack=true; } : ( ^(
comparison_operator ( condition_quantifier )? c1= condition c2=
condition ) | ^( BETWEEN expression ^( and_or_operator c1= condition c2=
condition ) ) | ^( condition_operator expression c1= condition ^( ESCAPE
escape_character ) ) | ^( condition_operator expression c1= condition )
| ^( condition_operator expression_list c1= condition ) | ^( NOT c1=
condition ) | ^( EXISTS expression ) | ^( IS_NOT_NULL expression ) | ^(
IS_NULL expression ) | ^( IS_NOT expression UNTIL_CHANGED ) | ^( IS
expression UNTIL_CHANGED ) | ^( IS_NOT expression UNTIL_CLOSED ) | ^( IS
expression UNTIL_CLOSED ) | expression | condition_list ); context=..
However the following SQL, that just doesn't have the parenthesis around
1, works fine!!!
select (1) from table1
where 2 between 3 and 4;
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 il-antlr-inter...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
il-antlr-interest+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/il-antlr-interest?hl=en.
[il-antlr-interest: 33267] Re: [antlr-interest] Deciphering the TreeWalker error message ...
Jim, Gray, Loring,
Thanks for pitching in to give me some direction to focus on.
ANTLR Gurus,
I've solved the issue. Still I am unable to reason out my fix.
I am providing the offending grammar snippet below and would appreciate
your rationale to get an insight into the problem and how the fix works!!
The below rule fails with the
no viable alt; token=[@-1,0:0='DOWN' error message
compoundExpression:
^(sclarSubExpression conversion_clause)
| sclarSubExpression
;
However when I change the rule like the following, i.e make the
conversion_clause optional and then remove the second alternative every
thing works fine!! In my mind both the rules are semantically identical.
compoundExpression:
^(sclarSubExpression conversion_clause?)
;
Thanks a ton.
-Vasan
On 7/21/2011 4:16 AM, Jim Idle wrote:
Or use the dot description producing methods and create a nice graphic
with graphviz. Much easier to see that way.
Jim
-Original Message-
From: antlr-interest-boun...@antlr.org [mailto:antlr-interest-
boun...@antlr.org] On Behalf Of Gary Miller
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 3:44 PM
To: antlr-interest@antlr.org
Subject: Re: [antlr-interest] Deciphering the TreeWalker error message
...
I often find it usefully to print out the AST (toStringTree in Java)
and walk through the tree grammar manually.
Regards
Gary
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 3:15 AM, Loring Craymerlgcray...@yahoo.com
wrote:
UP and DOWN tokens (start/end of child list for tree) do not have
location information attached so no line/column error reporting.
Mostly the error says that you started a subtree that your grammar
does not match, probably an LPAREN or RPAREN rooted subtree from your
report of cases where you do or do not get the error.
--Loring
From: srinivasan karthikeyan pitchai
srinivasan.karthikeyan.pitc...@oracle.com
To: antlr-interest@antlr.org
Cc: Terence Parrpa...@cs.usfca.edu
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 9:46 AM
Subject: [antlr-interest] Deciphering the TreeWalker error message
...
Hi Folks,
What does the ANTLR walker error message like the following mean?
no viable alt; token=[@-1,0:0='DOWN'
Would appreciate any general guidance/suggestions to zero in on the
errors of this nature.
Thanks,
Vasan
Input sql:
---
select (1) from table1
where 2 between 3 and 4;
Error Message:
TDWalker1.g: node from after line 2:8 [start1, startStatement, dml,
query_term, query_expression, query, query_unit, where_clause,
condition_list, condition_subexpression, condition] Walker1: no
viable alt; token=[@-1,0:0='DOWN',2,0:-1] (decision=127 state 0)
decision=590:1: condition options {backtrack=true; } : ( ^(
comparison_operator ( condition_quantifier )? c1= condition c2=
condition ) | ^( BETWEEN expression ^( and_or_operator c1= condition
c2= condition ) ) | ^( condition_operator expression c1= condition
^(
ESCAPE escape_character ) ) | ^( condition_operator expression c1=
condition )
| ^( condition_operator expression_list c1= condition ) | ^( NOT c1=
condition ) | ^( EXISTS expression ) | ^( IS_NOT_NULL expression ) |
^( IS_NULL expression ) | ^( IS_NOT expression UNTIL_CHANGED ) | ^(
IS expression UNTIL_CHANGED ) | ^( IS_NOT expression UNTIL_CLOSED )
|
^( IS expression UNTIL_CLOSED ) | expression | condition_list );
context=..
However the following SQL, that just doesn't have the parenthesis
around 1, works fine!!!
select (1) from table1
where 2 between 3 and 4;
List: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-interest
Unsubscribe:
http://www.antlr.org/mailman/options/antlr-interest/your-email-
address
List: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-interest
Unsubscribe:
http://www.antlr.org/mailman/options/antlr-interest/your-email-
address
List: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-interest
Unsubscribe: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/options/antlr-interest/your-
email-address
List: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-interest
Unsubscribe:
http://www.antlr.org/mailman/options/antlr-interest/your-email-address
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 il-antlr-inter...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
il-antlr-interest+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/il-antlr-interest?hl=en.
[il-antlr-interest: 33268] Re: [antlr-interest] Deciphering the TreeWalker error message ...
Hi Folks,
I forgot to mention. The compoundExpression rule has options{backtrack
= true;} set that is it reads like
compoundExpression
options {backtrack = true;}
:
^(sclarSubExpression conversion_clause)
| sclarSubExpression
;
Thanks,
Vasan
On 7/21/2011 10:56 AM, srinivasan karthikeyan pitchai wrote:
Jim, Gray, Loring,
Thanks for pitching in to give me some direction to focus on.
ANTLR Gurus,
I've solved the issue. Still I am unable to reason out my fix.
I am providing the offending grammar snippet below and would appreciate
your rationale to get an insight into the problem and how the fix works!!
The below rule fails with the
no viable alt; token=[@-1,0:0='DOWN' error message
compoundExpression:
^(sclarSubExpression conversion_clause)
| sclarSubExpression
;
However when I change the rule like the following, i.e make the
conversion_clause optional and then remove the second alternative every
thing works fine!! In my mind both the rules are semantically identical.
compoundExpression:
^(sclarSubExpression conversion_clause?)
;
Thanks a ton.
-Vasan
On 7/21/2011 4:16 AM, Jim Idle wrote:
Or use the dot description producing methods and create a nice graphic
with graphviz. Much easier to see that way.
Jim
-Original Message-
From: antlr-interest-boun...@antlr.org [mailto:antlr-interest-
boun...@antlr.org] On Behalf Of Gary Miller
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 3:44 PM
To: antlr-interest@antlr.org
Subject: Re: [antlr-interest] Deciphering the TreeWalker error message
...
I often find it usefully to print out the AST (toStringTree in Java)
and walk through the tree grammar manually.
Regards
Gary
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 3:15 AM, Loring Craymerlgcray...@yahoo.com
wrote:
UP and DOWN tokens (start/end of child list for tree) do not have
location information attached so no line/column error reporting.
Mostly the error says that you started a subtree that your grammar
does not match, probably an LPAREN or RPAREN rooted subtree from your
report of cases where you do or do not get the error.
--Loring
From: srinivasan karthikeyan pitchai
srinivasan.karthikeyan.pitc...@oracle.com
To: antlr-interest@antlr.org
Cc: Terence Parrpa...@cs.usfca.edu
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 9:46 AM
Subject: [antlr-interest] Deciphering the TreeWalker error message
...
Hi Folks,
What does the ANTLR walker error message like the following mean?
no viable alt; token=[@-1,0:0='DOWN'
Would appreciate any general guidance/suggestions to zero in on the
errors of this nature.
Thanks,
Vasan
Input sql:
---
select (1) from table1
where 2 between 3 and 4;
Error Message:
TDWalker1.g: node from after line 2:8 [start1, startStatement, dml,
query_term, query_expression, query, query_unit, where_clause,
condition_list, condition_subexpression, condition] Walker1: no
viable alt; token=[@-1,0:0='DOWN',2,0:-1] (decision=127 state 0)
decision=590:1: condition options {backtrack=true; } : ( ^(
comparison_operator ( condition_quantifier )? c1= condition c2=
condition ) | ^( BETWEEN expression ^( and_or_operator c1= condition
c2= condition ) ) | ^( condition_operator expression c1= condition
^(
ESCAPE escape_character ) ) | ^( condition_operator expression c1=
condition )
| ^( condition_operator expression_list c1= condition ) | ^( NOT c1=
condition ) | ^( EXISTS expression ) | ^( IS_NOT_NULL expression ) |
^( IS_NULL expression ) | ^( IS_NOT expression UNTIL_CHANGED ) | ^(
IS expression UNTIL_CHANGED ) | ^( IS_NOT expression UNTIL_CLOSED )
|
^( IS expression UNTIL_CLOSED ) | expression | condition_list );
context=..
However the following SQL, that just doesn't have the parenthesis
around 1, works fine!!!
select (1) from table1
where 2 between 3 and 4;
List: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-interest
Unsubscribe:
http://www.antlr.org/mailman/options/antlr-interest/your-email-
address
List: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-interest
Unsubscribe:
http://www.antlr.org/mailman/options/antlr-interest/your-email-
address
List: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-interest
Unsubscribe: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/options/antlr-interest/your-
email-address
List: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-interest
Unsubscribe:
http://www.antlr.org/mailman/options/antlr-interest/your-email-address
List: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-interest
Unsubscribe:
http://www.antlr.org/mailman/options/antlr-interest/your-email-address
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 il-antlr-inter...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send
[il-antlr-interest: 33270] Re: [antlr-interest] Deciphering the TreeWalker error message ...
Hi Gurus,
Input:
select (1) from table1
where 2 between 3 and 4;
For what ever it is worth, even the equivalent rewrite of the rule
continues to fail!!
compoundExpression
options {backtrack = true;}
:
^(sclarSubExpression conversion_clause
| ^(sclarSubExpression blank)
;
blank:
;
The only acceptable rule seems to be:
compoundExpression:
^(sclarSubExpression conversion_clause?)
;
Any insight into the nature of the issue and why it works using the
second rule definition, while it fails with the first rule definition
would be great.
Many Thanks,
Vasan
On 7/21/2011 10:59 AM, srinivasan karthikeyan pitchai wrote:
Hi Folks,
I forgot to mention. The compoundExpression rule has options{backtrack
= true;} set that is it reads like
compoundExpression
options {backtrack = true;}
:
^(sclarSubExpression conversion_clause)
| sclarSubExpression
;
Thanks,
Vasan
On 7/21/2011 10:56 AM, srinivasan karthikeyan pitchai wrote:
Jim, Gray, Loring,
Thanks for pitching in to give me some direction to focus on.
ANTLR Gurus,
I've solved the issue. Still I am unable to reason out my fix.
I am providing the offending grammar snippet below and would appreciate
your rationale to get an insight into the problem and how the fix works!!
The below rule fails with the
no viable alt; token=[@-1,0:0='DOWN' error message
compoundExpression:
^(sclarSubExpression conversion_clause)
| sclarSubExpression
;
However when I change the rule like the following, i.e make the
conversion_clause optional and then remove the second alternative every
thing works fine!! In my mind both the rules are semantically identical.
compoundExpression:
^(sclarSubExpression conversion_clause?)
;
Thanks a ton.
-Vasan
On 7/21/2011 4:16 AM, Jim Idle wrote:
Or use the dot description producing methods and create a nice graphic
with graphviz. Much easier to see that way.
Jim
-Original Message-
From: antlr-interest-boun...@antlr.org [mailto:antlr-interest-
boun...@antlr.org] On Behalf Of Gary Miller
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 3:44 PM
To: antlr-interest@antlr.org
Subject: Re: [antlr-interest] Deciphering the TreeWalker error message
...
I often find it usefully to print out the AST (toStringTree in Java)
and walk through the tree grammar manually.
Regards
Gary
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 3:15 AM, Loring Craymerlgcray...@yahoo.com
wrote:
UP and DOWN tokens (start/end of child list for tree) do not have
location information attached so no line/column error reporting.
Mostly the error says that you started a subtree that your grammar
does not match, probably an LPAREN or RPAREN rooted subtree from your
report of cases where you do or do not get the error.
--Loring
From: srinivasan karthikeyan pitchai
srinivasan.karthikeyan.pitc...@oracle.com
To: antlr-interest@antlr.org
Cc: Terence Parrpa...@cs.usfca.edu
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 9:46 AM
Subject: [antlr-interest] Deciphering the TreeWalker error message
...
Hi Folks,
What does the ANTLR walker error message like the following mean?
no viable alt; token=[@-1,0:0='DOWN'
Would appreciate any general guidance/suggestions to zero in on the
errors of this nature.
Thanks,
Vasan
Input sql:
---
select (1) from table1
where 2 between 3 and 4;
Error Message:
TDWalker1.g: node from after line 2:8 [start1, startStatement, dml,
query_term, query_expression, query, query_unit, where_clause,
condition_list, condition_subexpression, condition] Walker1: no
viable alt; token=[@-1,0:0='DOWN',2,0:-1] (decision=127 state 0)
decision=590:1: condition options {backtrack=true; } : ( ^(
comparison_operator ( condition_quantifier )? c1= condition c2=
condition ) | ^( BETWEEN expression ^( and_or_operator c1= condition
c2= condition ) ) | ^( condition_operator expression c1= condition
^(
ESCAPE escape_character ) ) | ^( condition_operator expression c1=
condition )
| ^( condition_operator expression_list c1= condition ) | ^( NOT c1=
condition ) | ^( EXISTS expression ) | ^( IS_NOT_NULL expression ) |
^( IS_NULL expression ) | ^( IS_NOT expression UNTIL_CHANGED ) | ^(
IS expression UNTIL_CHANGED ) | ^( IS_NOT expression UNTIL_CLOSED )
|
^( IS expression UNTIL_CLOSED ) | expression | condition_list );
context=..
However the following SQL, that just doesn't have the parenthesis
around 1, works fine!!!
select (1) from table1
where 2 between 3 and 4;
List: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-interest
Unsubscribe:
http://www.antlr.org/mailman/options/antlr-interest/your-email-
address
List: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-interest
Unsubscribe:
http://www.antlr.org/mailman/options/antlr-interest/your-email-
address
List: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-interest
Unsubscribe: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/options/antlr-interest/your
[il-antlr-interest: 32743] [antlr-interest] AST rewrite
Hi Gurus, I'm a novice using ANTLR for a development project. I am at a stage where I need to rewrite AST so that the transformed AST renders itself more easy for me to walk and emit the translation that I need. In this context I've a concept question. In general, can I use the *same* tree adapter, used by the InputNodeStream used by the walker, in a java method that I code to restructure the tree without using the rewrite rule? That is can I add, delete, replace nodes at will in the source tree? I am looking at this option as I need to move up a subtree from deep down to a much higher level. In particular would manipulating the source tree mess up the iterator used by the ANTLR AST walker to parse the tree? (eg) Just want to know if I can effect this in JAVA. I am sure we can make it happen using rewrite rule. However I want to conceptually know if what I desire above is a feasibility or it it a totally wrong approach. ^(ROOT a b ^(ROOT c d ^(ROOT e f g))) I need to restructure the tree like, say, ^(ROOT a b ^(ROOT c d ) ^(ROOT e f g)) Based on your input I need to chalk the future course of my coding. Thanks in advance. Regards, Vasan 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 il-antlr-inter...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to il-antlr-interest+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/il-antlr-interest?hl=en.
[il-antlr-interest: 32748] Re: [antlr-interest] AST rewrite
Thanks for sharing your input. I am able to do some pretty complex AST manipulation as stated initially. First results are very encouraging, I am getting an end to end translation successfully. Regards, Vasan On 6/11/2011 7:31 PM, Trevor John Thompson wrote: The short answer is yes, you can manipulate the tree (before walking, not during). I am using tree adapter manipulations to reorganize the AST, and then handing the tree to the standard tree walker. The only caution is that TreeIterator depends on parent pointers. I am contemplating a version that does not have this dependency, so i can base my trees on BaseTree, rather than CommonTree. On 2011 Jun 11, at 00:53, srinivasan karthikeyan pitchai wrote: Hi Gurus, I'm a novice using ANTLR for a development project. I am at a stage where I need to rewrite AST so that the transformed AST renders itself more easy for me to walk and emit the translation that I need. In this context I've a concept question. In general, can I use the *same* tree adapter, used by the InputNodeStream used by the walker, in a java method that I code to restructure the tree without using the rewrite rule? That is can I add, delete, replace nodes at will in the source tree? I am looking at this option as I need to move up a subtree from deep down to a much higher level. In particular would manipulating the source tree mess up the iterator used by the ANTLR AST walker to parse the tree? (eg) Just want to know if I can effect this in JAVA. I am sure we can make it happen using rewrite rule. However I want to conceptually know if what I desire above is a feasibility or it it a totally wrong approach. ^(ROOT a b ^(ROOT c d ^(ROOT e f g))) I need to restructure the tree like, say, ^(ROOT a b ^(ROOT c d ) ^(ROOT e f g)) Based on your input I need to chalk the future course of my coding. Thanks in advance. Regards, Vasan List: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-interest Unsubscribe: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/options/antlr-interest/your-email-address -- Trevor John Thompson(425) 246-4023 net: ti...@me.com Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum videtur. 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 il-antlr-inter...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to il-antlr-interest+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/il-antlr-interest?hl=en.
