Eclipse Community Forums: TMF (Xtext) » [SOLVED] Grammar Warning The rule ... may be consumed without object instantiation.

Help

Home

Home » Modeling » TMF (Xtext) » [SOLVED] Grammar Warning The rule ... may be consumed without object instantiation.

Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator

[SOLVED] Grammar Warning The rule ... may be consumed without object instantiation. [message #846089]

Sun, 15 April 2012 19:00

kon f

Messages: 152
Registered: March 2012

Senior Member

Hey Guys!

I'm reading the Xtext documentation and was playing around with some examples. I found a nice one that uses unordered groups to explain the modifiers of the Java language:

enum Visibility:
	PUBLIC='public' | PRIVATE='private' | PROTECTED='protected';

Modifier:
	(static?='static')? & (final?='final')? & visibility=Visibility;

Since the Java language also provides the none (or package) modifier, I extended the example (wrapped the visibility assignment with optional cardinality):

enum Visibility:
	PUBLIC='public' | PRIVATE='private' | PROTECTED='protected';

Modifier:
	(static?='static')? & (final?='final')? & (visibility=Visibility)?;

Now, I'm getting a warning: The rule 'Modifier' may be consumed without object instantiation. Add an action to ensure object creation, e.g. '{Modifier}'.

I found some similar issues on this website and understand the reason for the warning, but I wasn't able to get rid of it.

I don't know if my approach is straightforward. Thank you Smile

Kon

[Updated on: Sun, 15 April 2012 20:45]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Grammar Warning The rule ... may be consumed without object instantiation. [message #846104 is a reply to message #846089]

Sun, 15 April 2012 19:22

Christian Dietrich

Messages: 14665
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

Modifier:
{Modifier} ((static?='static')? & (final?='final')? & (visibility=Visibility)?);

Twitter : @chrdietrich
Blog : https://www.dietrich-it.de

Report message to a moderator

Re: Grammar Warning The rule ... may be consumed without object instantiation. [message #846162 is a reply to message #846104]

Sun, 15 April 2012 20:44

kon f

Messages: 152
Registered: March 2012

Senior Member

Thank you Christian! That example worked.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Grammar Warning The rule ... may be consumed without object instantiation. [message #852807 is a reply to message #846162]

Sun, 22 April 2012 10:37

kon f

Messages: 152
Registered: March 2012

Senior Member

I just noticed that even with the cardinality set to ? for Visibility, still one instance is created at runtime. Since an enum is required to have one of its declared values, it is set to public (apparently the first one). The following input is correct for my language:

final static int SPEEDLIMIT = 30;

I actually thought, that my Modifier instance is going to look as followed (static and final are primitive values, so they always going to have a default value):

static=true
final=true
visibility=NULL

I'm using NULL value as indicator for package modifier. Am I doing something wrong? Sad

I tried the following and it works as expected:

Test:
'public' | 'private' | 'protected'
;

ModifierField:
{ModifierField}((static?='static')? & (final?='final')? & (visibility=Test)?);

Any suggestions Smile

?

Thank you!

Report message to a moderator

Re: Grammar Warning The rule ... may be consumed without object instantiation. [message #852817 is a reply to message #852807]

Sun, 22 April 2012 10:52

Christian Dietrich

Messages: 14665
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

Hi,

the only Possibility i know is to switch to a manually maintained metamodel

~Christian

Twitter : @chrdietrich
Blog : https://www.dietrich-it.de

Report message to a moderator

Re: Grammar Warning The rule ... may be consumed without object instantiation. [message #852827 is a reply to message #852817]

Sun, 22 April 2012 11:06

kon f

Messages: 152
Registered: March 2012

Senior Member

Thank you Christian! Than I guess, I'll stick with my "Test" solution Wink

By the way, is this behaviour actually intended?

[Updated on: Sun, 22 April 2012 11:09]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Grammar Warning The rule ... may be consumed without object instantiation. [message #852834 is a reply to message #852827]

Sun, 22 April 2012 11:14

Christian Dietrich

Messages: 14665
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

i guess yes. it is explained in the docs
http://www.eclipse.org/Xtext/documentation/2_1_0/020-grammar-language.php#syntax_8

Quote:

Please note, that Ecore does not support unset values for enums.

Twitter : @chrdietrich
Blog : https://www.dietrich-it.de

[Updated on: Sun, 22 April 2012 11:16]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Grammar Warning The rule ... may be consumed without object instantiation. [message #853715 is a reply to message #852834]

Mon, 23 April 2012 09:11

Mikael Karpberg

Messages: 8
Registered: April 2012
Location: Sweden

Junior Member

Seems like the simplest solution is to have something like this, no?

enum Visibility:
	DEFAULT_VIS='__packetvisibilitydefault' | PUBLIC='public' | PRIVATE='private' | PROTECTED='protected';

Report message to a moderator

Re: Grammar Warning The rule ... may be consumed without object instantiation. [message #854133 is a reply to message #853715]

Mon, 23 April 2012 17:45

Christian Dietrich

Messages: 14665
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

yes

Twitter : @chrdietrich
Blog : https://www.dietrich-it.de

Report message to a moderator

Re: Grammar Warning The rule ... may be consumed without object instantiation. [message #856485 is a reply to message #854133]

Wed, 25 April 2012 18:02

kon f

Messages: 152
Registered: March 2012

Senior Member

Apparently, this adds an additional keyword that can be used by the user e.g.

final static __packetvisibilitydefault int SPEEDLIMIT = 30;
final static int SPEEDLIMIT = 30;

Both expressions are valid and have the same meaning. Since code competition suggests __packetvisibilitydefault as possible keyword, I'll keep using:

Visibility:
'public' | 'private' | 'protected'
;

Thanks!

Report message to a moderator

Re: Grammar Warning The rule ... may be consumed without object instantiation. [message #856559 is a reply to message #856485]

Wed, 25 April 2012 19:38

Christian Dietrich

Messages: 14665
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

hi as said before. Maintain the meta model manually. Alternatively
overwrite completeKeyword. In the proposal provider and suppress the
super call if the keyword is the __xxxx one

Twitter : @chrdietrich
Blog : https://www.dietrich-it.de

Report message to a moderator