>> Oh, I see. I thought you were writing a C-like interpreter that
>> would actually execute the loop. In that case, you're right, and my
>> point is irrelevant. I suppose what ultimately gets output is
>> machine-code or assembler with a branch and a goto for the loop?
>
> Yes! you're righ
Hi Laurence,
> Oh, I see. I thought you were writing a C-like interpreter that
> would actually execute the loop. In that case, you're right, and my
> point is irrelevant. I suppose what ultimately gets output is
> machine-code or assembler with a branch and a goto for the loop?
Yes! you'
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Ilyes Gouta wrote:
>
> > fexpr: /* Empty */
> > {
> > /* Action for empty case */
> > };
> >
> > fexpr: expr
> > {
> > /* Action for `expr' case */
> > };
>
> I wasn't aware the one could duplicate a rule so that it has two
> possible bodies. But it's alright, th
Hi Laurence,
Thanks for your comments!
> fexpr: /* Empty */
> {
> /* Action for empty case */
> };
>
> fexpr: expr
> {
> /* Action for `expr' case */
> };
I wasn't aware the one could duplicate a rule so that it has two
possible bodies. But it's alright, there is a second, much prett
Ilyes Gouta wrote:
Basically what it's done is enumerating all the possibilities for the
construction of the for loop. Is it the only way do things clearly and
properly?
There's no 'clear and proper' way to do this; do whatever's best for
you, try it, fix it, repeat. Here's what I do:
itera
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Ilyes Gouta wrote:
> If I setup a new fexpr (and a new fassignment) that would accept
> nothing or expression, i.e:
>
> fexpr:
> | expr;
>
> for_stmt:
> for (fassignment; fexpr; fassignment) block
>
> How can I define an action that would be triggered only for the e
OK, got it.
One has just to define fexpr as:
fexpr:
';' { action1(); }
| expr ';'{ action2(); }
and to redefine for_stmt as:
for_stmt:
for (assignment expr assignment) block
;
to get the right behavior. :)
Thanks again, guys!
Best regards,
Ilyes Gouta.
On Fri, Feb 29,
Hi!
Thanks for your help.
If I setup a new fexpr (and a new fassignment) that would accept
nothing or expression, i.e:
fexpr:
| expr;
for_stmt:
for (fassignment; fexpr; fassignment) block
How can I define an action that would be triggered only for the empty
expressions? (I have to diff
On 28 Feb 2008, at 15:16, Ilyes Gouta wrote:
I'm writing a small grammar for a very simplified C language. My goal
is to produce an AST once a script file is parsed by the flex/bison
tools. I got almost everything working nicely, except for the C style
for loops.
...
How one would modify the
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 03:16:40PM +0100, Ilyes Gouta wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'm writing a small grammar for a very simplified C language. My goal
> is to produce an AST once a script file is parsed by the flex/bison
> tools. I got almost everything working nicely, except for the C style
> for loops.
>
Hi!
I'm writing a small grammar for a very simplified C language. My goal
is to produce an AST once a script file is parsed by the flex/bison
tools. I got almost everything working nicely, except for the C style
for loops.
Let's assume that we have a rule like this:
unary:
const
| id
;
ex
11 matches
Mail list logo
