On 17-02-03 05:32 PM, Waldemar Horwat wrote:
On 02/03/2017 08:17, Michael Dyck wrote:
On 17-02-02 06:23 PM, Waldemar Horwat wrote:
Lookahead restrictions fit very well into an LR(1) engine
Again: Great, but how? E.g., do you pre-process the grammar, modify the
construction of the automaton, and/or modify the operation of the parser?
For each state × token combination, the automaton describes what happens
when you're in state S and see a token T. The lookahead restrictions remove
possible transitions; without them there would be ambiguities where a given
state × token combination would want to do two incompatible things.
Okay, so do you generate the automaton (ignoring lookahead restrictions) and
then remove transitions (using lookahead restrictions)? Or do you integrate
the lookahead-restrictions into the generation of the automaton?
That's different from parametrized rules, which simply macro-expand into
lots of individual rules.
Yup.
But the context-dependentness of lexing is a parse-time problem, not a
validation-time problem, right?
No.
The syntactic level can just assume a stream of (correctly lexed) input
elements.
(I should have said "*Validation* of the syntactic level [etc]")
No! It's impossible to create a stream of correctly lexed input elements
without doing syntactic level parsing.
I quite agree. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. What I mean is that, once
you've generated the automaton for the syntactic grammar, you can just look
at each state's set of expected terminals, and from that deduce the goal
symbol that the lexer will need to use to get the next token when the parser
is in that state. The point being that you can do that *after* generating
the syntactic automaton. So the context-dependentness of lexing doesn't have
to affect the process of generating the syntactic automaton.
(That's assuming an LR(1)-ish parser, and an approach where you don't try to
combine the syntactic and lexical grammars to generate a single
[scannerless] automaton. Which may not be your approach.)
The validator looks for problems such as the syntactic grammar giving the
lexer contradictory instructions. An example would be any syntactic
grammar automaton state where one outgoing syntactic transition would
swallow a regexp token and another outgoing syntactic transition from the
same state would swallow a / token. If any such state exists, the grammar
is broken.
Yup, the spec asserts the non-existence of such states ("syntactic grammar
contexts").
-Michael
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
