Greetings!
Sorry about this message, I think I have broken any threading to the
original message. I am replying from the mail-list archive and seem to
be unable to figure out how to graft my reply into its proper thread.
Sorry.
On Fri Oct 16 12:21:33 PDT 2009, Kaleb Pederson asked:
> I'm getting an error that doesn't make any sense, either because I've
> missed something fundamental or I've stumbled across a bug. I'm doing
> some type checking within a tree parser. I have a plusMinusExpression
> which can either be a negation or a subtraction expression. In order
> to to check to see which it is, I have `if ($rhs != null)` within my
> action. That line, however, causes the following error:
>
> SemanticChecker.g:163:3: missing attribute access on rule scope: rhs
>
> The grammar fragment follows:
>
> plusMinusExpression returns [Type type]
> : ^(PLUS lhs=baseExpression rhs=baseExpression) { /*...*/ }
> | ^(MINUS lhs=baseExpression rhs=baseExpression?)
> {
> typeChecker.assertIsNumericType($lhs.type);
> if ($rhs != null)
> {
> typeChecker.assertIsNumericType($rhs.type);
> typeChecker.assertEqualTypes($lhs.type,
> $rhs.type);
> }
> $type = $lhs.type;
> }
> ;
Others in this thread have pointed out that you should use ($rhs.tree != null)
in your if statement.
I would like to, respectfully, suggest that you are doing the Wrong Thing(TM)
in your action code.
And it is wrong on two levels - the first mis-use is rather shallow and the
second is a rather more
deeper mis-use.
I mean nothing personal nor pejorative by these comments. I am just trying to
point out a couple
of "better" ways to do the above. And of course "better" is a qualitative
assessment unique to each
reader of this message (e.g. what is "better" to me may not be "better" to
you...).
The first, shallow, mis-use (IMHO) is to not simply let the Tree Walker code
decide for you whether
or not the rhs tree node is present. That is, instead of
| ^(MINUS lhs=baseExpression rhs=baseExpression?) { /* figure out what to do
*/ }
do something like this:
| ^(MINUS lhs=baseExpression) { /* handle the 1-arity '-' operator here */ }
| ^(MINUS lhs=baseExpression rhs=baseExpression) { /* handle the 2-arity
subtraction here */ }
e.g. the Tree Walker code has to already poke around in your tree in order to
determine whether or
not the rhs is present (as part of its tree pattern matching) --- so let it
control the invocation
of your actions.
The second, i think deeper, mis-use is that you have (apparently) discarded
information discovered
during parsing and AST creation that you could use to guide your subsequent AST
processing.
Surely in your Parser the 1-arity '-' appears in a different syntactic context
from the 2-arity '-'
operator ---- so when parsing "a+-b" we know that the '-' must be the 1-arity
operator, but when we
parse "a-b" we know that the '-' must be the 2-arity operator.
So I suggest to you that your Parser should differentiate the MINUS tree ---
since, I assert, that
it already does so as part of the parse --- by creating a different (with
imaginary root) node for
the 1-arity case. So "a+-b" obtains the tree (PLUS a (NEGATE b)) and "a-b"
obtains the tree
(MINUS a b) or something similar in accord with your taste...
And so, with this approach, in all of your post-processing of the AST, the
1-arity and 2-arity
operations have already been differentiated in the tree itself and therefore
can be directly
determined --- no need to noodle around about whether or not 1 or 2 children
are present.
Your Mileage May Vary.
Hope this helps...
-jbb
(again, sorry for breaking the threading of the replies to the original message)
and there is also the possibility of having ONLY the 2-arity '-' operator
because in Algebra
the 1-arity '-' is an implicit 2-arity operation involving zero. so the "a+-b"
would become
(PLUS a (MINUS 0 b)) --- but this just tends to break my brain so i do not do
that..... ;-)
and, please, can we just not discuss the whole treatment of 2-arity '-' as an
addition
with multiply by -1 ..... my brain tends to just shutdown at that prospect ;-)
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
