@iobass16 -- you're right. The default associativity is left, but this is not documented AFAICT. I've filed a bug report so that when and if there is a new Marpa::R2 release, the docs should be fixed: https://github.com/jeffreykegler/Marpa--R2/issues/272
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 11:48 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for the pointer to prose on the rule rewriting. I can read Perl > about as well as middle English -- lots of effort and guessing, and usually > getting pretty close. :-) > > Further comments inline below. > > On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 10:10:01 PM UTC-6, Jeffrey Kegler wrote: > >> Just in case it was unclear, that last message was aimed at the general >> reader of this read, and was not ad hominem. >> > > No offense taken -- it sounds like great advice to me in particular! > > @Anton: Off the top of my head, 2+3+4 is ambiguous in that grammar -- the >> BNF does not implement associativity. >> > > So SLIF has an implied, default associativity? I can find one IRC comment > to this effect, but I can't find it anywhere in the docs. (There's a great > potential spot in Scanless/DSL.pod where it discusses associativity....) > > This explains why my parse was not ambiguous. What if I *want* my grammar > to be ambiguous in this case? I saw another IRC comment asking for an > adverb setting for associativity of "none". Is this possible? > > Thanks! > > - Ryan > > <snip> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "marpa parser" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "marpa parser" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
