Apologies, I believe I had made an error in the grammar sample I mailed out. I was doing what I thought was inlining--except I believe I did it backwards, making it very incorrect. Here is the relevant section of the original grammar as presented in the grammar of this language (BETA), modified to ANTLR's syntax.
term : mulExp
| factor
;
mulExp : timesExp
| divExp
| modExp
| andExp
;
// irrelevant code removed
timesExp: term '*' factor;
divExp : term 'div' factor;
modExp : term 'mod' factor;
andExp : term 'and' factor;
factor : textConst
| integerConst
| notExp
| noneExp
| repetitionSlice
| transaction
;
I turned it into this:
term : factor (timesExp | divExp | modExp | andExp)*
;
// irrelevant code removed
timesExp: '*' factor;
divExp : 'div' factor;
modExp : 'mod' factor;
andExp : 'and' factor;
factor : textConst
| integerConst
| notExp
| noneExp
| repetitionSlice
| transaction
;
I have attached two copies of the entire grammar for anyone who is
curious. Beta.g is almost identical to the grammar as presented in the
book /Object-Oriented Programming in the BETA Programming Language/:
http://www.daimi.au.dk/~beta/Books/index.html#betabook_download
BetaNew.g is the grammar as I've adapted it to work with ANTLR.
Also, thanks for the help, John.
Sincerely,
Kyle
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:22 PM, John B. Brodie <[email protected]> wrote:
> Greetings!
>
> It is really hard to know for sure how to truly answer your question
> without seeing a complete example of your problem (e.g. please always
> try to post a *smallest* yet *complete* example of your issue when
> asking a question).
>
> With that mealy worded excuse for my incompetence, I will venture an
> answer below...
>
> On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 19:30 -0600, Kyle Robson wrote:
>> Hi, I have beenA reading on the wiki, and I already fixed two of my
>> larger issues in my grammar (hopefully correctly). Now I've run into a
>> new set of rules that need fixing, and I would like to verify I'm
>> going about this correctly. I will take a guess, and can someone tell
>> me if it's correct?
>>
>> The problem snippet:
>>
>> timesExp: (timesExp | divExp | modExp | andExp | factor) '*' factor;
>> divExp : (timesExp | divExp | modExp | andExp | factor) 'div' factor;
>> modExp : (timesExp | divExp | modExp | andExp | factor) 'mod' factor;
>> andExp : (timesExp | divExp | modExp | andExp | factor) 'and' factor;
>> factor : '#'; // this rule is itself broken, but I will get to this
>> later, so I'm pretending it's something harmless
>>
>> My guess is to change them like this, using timesExp as an example
>>
>> timesExp: ((divExp | modExp | andExp | factor) '*' factor) ('*' factor)*
>>
>> Is this correct?
>
> I doubt it.
>
> maybe try something like the following (untested):
>
> timesExp : multiplicativeExp ;
> divExp : multiplicativeExp ;
> modExp : multiplicativeExp ;
> andExp : multiplicativeExp ;
> factor : multiplicativeExp ;
>
> multiplicativeExp : factor_x ( multiplicativeOperator factor_x )* ;
>
> multiplicativeOperator : '*' | 'div' | 'mod' | 'and' ;
>
> factor_x : .....whatever you have for `factor` now.... ;
>
>
>
> and, of course, if the above helps, you will really want to do *alot* of
> renaming of rules --- rather than having the factor_x, timesExp,
> divExp, ... stuff above
>
> hope this helps
> -jbb
>
>
>
List: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-interest Unsubscribe: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/options/antlr-interest/your-email-address
Beta.g
Description: Binary data
BetaNew.g
Description: Binary data
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "il-antlr-interest" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/il-antlr-interest?hl=en.
