Yes, this is the way I have it implemented in my production version. However, I have to conform to a language specification which allows text to have zero or more phrases. Is there some ANLTR magic that I can use to support this?
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Jim Idle <[email protected]> wrote: > Your text rule can be empty, you need to rejig your use of + and * or you > end up with the empty match in more than one place. > > > > Jim > > > > From: Cameron Ross [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 1:05 PM > To: Jim Idle > Subject: Re: [antlr-interest] OPEN, EOF ambiguity > > > > These rules give the gist of it... > > > > start_rule > > : clif_file EOF > > ; > > > > clif_file > > : cltext+ > > ; > > > > cltext > > : (OPEN CL_MODULE) => module -> ^(CLTEXT module) > > | text -> ^(CLTEXT text) > > ; > > > > module > > : OPEN CL_MODULE interpretablename exclusion_set? cltext CLOSE -> > ^(MODULE ^(MODULE_IDENTIFIER interpretablename) exclusion_set? cltext) > > ; > > > > text > > : phrase* -> ^(TEXT phrase*) > > ; > > ... > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Jim Idle <[email protected]> wrote: > > You probably need to send the grammar rather than that graphic. It is > likely something more fundamental and we cannot see what you predicates are > doing from the graphic. > > Jim > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:antlr-interest- > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Cameron Ross > > Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 12:34 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: [antlr-interest] OPEN, EOF ambiguity > > > > Hi, > > > > I have a grammar with an ambiguity that I just can't resolve. When I > > check the grammar using AntlrWorks I get the following: "Decision can > > match input such as "{EOF, OPEN}" using multiple alternatives: 1, 2". > > I've attached a screen grab of the syntax diagram generated by > > AntrlWorks. I don't understand why ANLTR is thinking that EOF is > > ambiguous with OPEN. I've checked the grammar and clif_file is the > > only rule that is not referenced from within the grammar, so I don't > > think that ANLTR should see module as a start rule. Any help is much > > appreciated. > > > > Cameron > > > > > > List: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-interest > Unsubscribe: > http://www.antlr.org/mailman/options/antlr-interest/your-email-address > > > > > -- > Kojeware Corporation > > > > > List: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-interest > Unsubscribe: > http://www.antlr.org/mailman/options/antlr-interest/your-email-address > -- Kojeware Corporation List: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-interest Unsubscribe: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/options/antlr-interest/your-email-address -- 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.
