On 11/16/2016 11:57 PM, Alex Buckley wrote:
On 11/16/2016 2:26 PM, Stephan Herrmann wrote:
And we may safely assume regularity of the grammar, i.e.,
the above approach will never lead to ambiguities, right?
Fictitious counter example
ModuleDeclaration:
module open Identifier ModuleBody;
module Identifier ModuleBody;
With this the second token could be keyword or identifier, and we're
stuck, aren't we?
May we assume that the grammar will not be extended in such ambiguous ways?
There is already a production like this:
ModuleStatement:
requires transitive ModuleName ;
requires ModuleName ;
Outch!!
So when you read "requires transitive" which rule are you parsing against?
When do you decide whether transitive is a keyword or an identifier?
I guess we have to wait until we matched the full rule.
That requires backtracking, or what am I missing?
Stephan
