2010/3/18 Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]>: > where the semantic actions of mixsequence simply build a concatenated list > of the constituent mixfix keywords, identifiers, and literals. We then run > ResolveMixFixSequence on this list as a post-pass, which converts the > initially parsed sequential AST into the expression AST intended by the > prevailing mixfix syntax rules.
This sounds a lot like what is described in "Parsing Mixfix Operators" by Danielsson and Norell as a possible implementation approach (they also mention it's already used in Haskell). I think it's safe to say that the approach does work, but as they point out, the parser must be able to find the extent of the expression somehow. > Anybody feel like taking the time to play around with one approach or the > other to help move BitC forward? What would you like to know about the first approach? I know nothing about GLR parsing, so I think I'll pass that one. _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
