| [TCS]Create left-recursive syntax [message #9799] |
Mon, 31 March 2008 11:06  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Hi,
assuming I'd have a metamodel like this:
abstract class Expression {
}
class BinaryExpression extends Expression {
attribute left : Expression;
attribute right : Expression;
}
class Value extends Expression {
attribute value: String;
}
And assuming I'd have a syntax like that:
template BinaryExpression
: left "=" right
;
template Value
: value
;
Then this syntax is obviously left-recursive, and ANTLR writes the
following error:
[antlr:antlr3] error(210): The following sets of rules are mutually
left-recursive [binaryExpression, expression]
However, in theory it is possible to create ANTLR Grammars that can do
what I indended above, by using more grammar rules (separating recursive
from non-recursive rules).
Is there any way to achieve this for the scenario above without changing
the metamodel? What would be the best approach to create such a syntax?
|
|
|
| Re: [TCS]Create left-recursive syntax [message #9825 is a reply to message #9799] |
Mon, 31 March 2008 12:16  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Hello,
When you have left recursion, you should use operatorTempltates and the
operator table.
You can for instance have a look at the FPath project from the TCS Zoo.
Regards,
Frédéric Jouault
Thibault a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> assuming I'd have a metamodel like this:
>
> abstract class Expression {
> }
>
> class BinaryExpression extends Expression {
> attribute left : Expression;
> attribute right : Expression;
> }
>
> class Value extends Expression {
> attribute value: String;
> }
>
> And assuming I'd have a syntax like that:
> template BinaryExpression
> : left "=" right
> ;
>
> template Value
> : value
> ;
>
> Then this syntax is obviously left-recursive, and ANTLR writes the
> following error:
> [antlr:antlr3] error(210): The following sets of rules are mutually
> left-recursive [binaryExpression, expression]
>
> However, in theory it is possible to create ANTLR Grammars that can do
> what I indended above, by using more grammar rules (separating recursive
> from non-recursive rules).
> Is there any way to achieve this for the scenario above without changing
> the metamodel? What would be the best approach to create such a syntax?
>
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.02857 seconds
Home