Eclipse Community Forums: TMF (Xtext) » Literal string conflict

Help

Home

Home » Modeling » TMF (Xtext) » Literal string conflict

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

Literal string conflict [message #1301938]

Fri, 18 April 2014 12:01

Christophe Bouhier

Messages: 937
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

Hi,

I have two rules which include a Literal String overlapping each other
and in conflict when validating the edited file.

Here is a snippet of the relevant part of the grammar, the 'VALUE'
literal is in conflict. Not during the generation of the code and model,
but when editing the file.

******

ValueNotation:
'VALUE NOTATION' '::=' value+=Value*
;

Value:
'VALUE' INT

terminal INT
........

*******

Sample model:

VALUE NOTATION ::= VALUE 6

**********
Here the right hand side 6 gives a marker, expecting 'N'.
So this makes me think this a String literal conflict.

Is this expected? How do I solve it? (After typing this email, I will
try make both Literals terminals and see what happens.

Cheers Christophe

Report message to a moderator

Re: Literal string conflict [message #1301957 is a reply to message #1301938]

Fri, 18 April 2014 12:18

Christian Dietrich

Messages: 14665
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

Hi,

without giving it a deeper loo:
dont use blanks in keyword

--
Need training, onsite consulting or any other kind of help for Xtext?
Go visit http://xtext.itemis.com or send a mail to xtext at itemis dot de

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

Report message to a moderator

Re: Literal string conflict [message #1301970 is a reply to message #1301957]

Fri, 18 April 2014 12:26

Ed Willink

Messages: 7655
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

HI

Use multiple tokens.

Surely

VALUE NOTATION ...

is the 'VALUE NOTATION' keyword too?

Regards

Ed Willink

On 18/04/2014 13:18, Christian Dietrich wrote:
> Hi,
>
> without giving it a deeper loo:
> dont use blanks in keyword
>

Report message to a moderator

Re: Literal string conflict [message #1301978 is a reply to message #1301970]

Fri, 18 April 2014 12:34

Christophe Bouhier

Messages: 937
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

On 18-04-14 14:26, Ed Willink wrote:
> HI
>
> Use multiple tokens.
>
> Surely
>
> VALUE NOTATION ...
>
> is the 'VALUE NOTATION' keyword too?
>
mmmh token conflict appearantly also happen in Parser rules?
I thought this as an issue of the Lexer.

> Regards
>
> Ed Willink
>
> On 18/04/2014 13:18, Christian Dietrich wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> without giving it a deeper loo:
>> dont use blanks in keyword
>>
>

Report message to a moderator

Re: Literal string conflict [message #1301991 is a reply to message #1301978]

Fri, 18 April 2014 12:44

Christophe Bouhier

Messages: 937
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

On 18-04-14 14:34, Christophe Bouhier wrote:
> On 18-04-14 14:26, Ed Willink wrote:
>> HI
>>
>> Use multiple tokens.
>>
>> Surely
>>
>> VALUE NOTATION ...
>>
>> is the 'VALUE NOTATION' keyword too?
>>
> mmmh token conflict appearantly also happen in Parser rules?
> I thought this as an issue of the Lexer.
>
Thanks guys, spliting the token to: 'VALUE' 'NOTATION' solved the issue.

>
>> Regards
>>
>> Ed Willink
>>
>> On 18/04/2014 13:18, Christian Dietrich wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> without giving it a deeper loo:
>>> dont use blanks in keyword
>>>
>>
>

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic:	numeric representation too big for Integer.
Next Topic:	Xtext definition and instance in same grammar

Goto Forum:

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

]

Current Time: Wed Apr 24 16:37:34 GMT 2024

.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Breadcrumbs

Sign up to our Newsletter