Unless you've changed the grammar, you are missing a rule to match
formulas followed by a new line.
formulas
: formula
| formulas '\n'
| formulas '\n' formula
;
j.
On 1 September 2010 11:11, Martin McDermott
wrote:
> Your right, I undid one to many lines and k
Your right, I undid one to many lines and killed it... Sorry about that.
At first I thought I understood the error, I thought it was a problem when
you have cases like 3 variables but 2 operations. The easier 2 variables and
1 op also fails, so now i"m not sure what its telling me. The output is
b
On 1 Sep 2010, at 07:01, Martin McDermott wrote:
I'm trying to write a simple grammar for propositional logic for a
project
of mine, with support for AND, OR, XOR, NOT. Nothing fancy, only I
cant seem
to come up with a correct grammar. My simple test cases all give me
syntax
e
You didn't turn on debugging in flex, which is why it doesn't tell you
anything.
Assuming you don't care about whitespace, you need to split the rule
on line 39 into
[ \t\r] ;
[\n] {lexEcho("%s", yytext); return yytext[0];}
The default rule needs to return something
Flex doesn't give me any output and looking online it looks like whitespace
wouldn't be causing this. For everything else I used the "." to have misc
things printed out.
So I'm not sure how thats possible or where its coming from. I attached the
file in case anyone feels like taking a look.
lexi
Aha!
$undefined means that the lexer returned a character value that you
are not prepared for, that is, it is not in a rule or %token in your
grammar file. Bison could have been a bit more cooperative by telling
you which character it is, but there you are.
Assuming the lexer is flex, %option d
I hate to keep dragging this out but this isnt helping me very much. I now
know that my syntax error is because of "unexpected $undefined, expecting
$end or '\n'", but adding a newline to my test_file doesn't fix this issue.
I'm not sure how my input does not conform to my grammar.
Thanks everyon
Essentially, your input does not conform to your grammar (but you
probably know that).
%error-verbose will give you more information about where the grammar
and your input disagree.
Set yydebug=1 to get a trace of the parse. With that, inspect
y.output for the failing state.
j.
If you mean why do you get the shift/reduce errors, it is because your
grammar is ambiguous.
You can deal with the ambiguity in several ways, but %left to specify
associativity and precedence as I said earlier seems like the easiest
in your case.
Doing that will remove all conflicts from your gra
Any comments on why I would be getting a syntax error?
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 1:50 AM, John P. Hartmann wrote:
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: John P. Hartmann
> Date: 1 September 2010 07:49
> Subject: Re: grammar for propositional logic
> To: Martin McDer
-- Forwarded message --
From: John P. Hartmann
Date: 1 September 2010 07:49
Subject: Re: grammar for propositional logic
To: Martin McDermott
You should inspect the .output file to resolve your conflicts. For
something as simple as yours, you should have zero tolerance for
Know that feeling alright...
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 1:13 AM, Alfonso Urdaneta wrote:
> On 9/1/10 1:01 AM, Martin McDermott wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to write a simple grammar for propositional logic for a project
>> of mine, with support for AND, OR, XOR, NOT. Nothing fan
On 9/1/10 1:01 AM, Martin McDermott wrote:
I'm trying to write a simple grammar for propositional logic for a project
of mine, with support for AND, OR, XOR, NOT. Nothing fancy, only I cant seem
to come up with a correct grammar. My simple test cases all give me syntax
errors.
Anyone
I'm trying to write a simple grammar for propositional logic for a project
of mine, with support for AND, OR, XOR, NOT. Nothing fancy, only I cant seem
to come up with a correct grammar. My simple test cases all give me syntax
errors.
Anyone mind taking a look at it?
Thanks
14 matches
Mail list logo
