Browse thread
[Caml-list] eliminating shift/reduce conflicts
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | Ken Rose <kenrose@t...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] eliminating shift/reduce conflicts |
Rafael 'Dido' Sevilla wrote:
> I have an ocamlyacc grammar that contains productions that look like:
>
> foo_list: FOO { [$1] }
> | foo_list COMMA FOO { $3 :: $1 }
> ;
>
> which creates a list of FOO objects. I however have some rules that
> need to be prefixed by either a single FOO or a foo_list, like so:
>
> bar: foo_list COLON xyzzy { ... }
>
> and
>
> baz: FOO COLON yzzyx { ... }
>
> This of course produces a shift/reduce conflict, and shifting fails to
> parse the 'bar' correctly. Perhaps I need to read a compiler
> construction textbook more thoroughly to figure out this answer, but any
> hints out there on getting rid of this shift/reduce.
The general opinion on comp.compilers, which I agree with, is that the
best way to deal with this is to parse a superset of what you "really"
want and then use the semantic phase to reject the excess. In this
case, that means you'd define
baz: foo_list COLON yzzyx
and later (or even in the semantic action right here) issue an error
message if the foo_list is longer than 1.
Good luck
- ken
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners