Grammar with low-precedence postfix operator?

Robert Jacobson <rljacobson@gmail.com>
Thu, 5 Feb 2015 13:27:31 -0500 (EST)

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Grammar with low-precedence postfix operator? rljacobson@gmail.com (Robert Jacobson) (2015-02-05)
Re: Grammar with low-precedence postfix operator? kaz@kylheku.com (Kaz Kylheku) (2015-02-05)
Re: Grammar with low-precedence postfix operator? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2015-02-07)
Re: Grammar with low-precedence postfix operator? rljacobson@gmail.com (Robert Jacobson) (2015-02-07)
Re: Grammar with low-precedence postfix operator? monnier@iro.umontreal.ca (Stefan Monnier) (2015-02-08)
Re: Grammar with low-precedence postfix operator? kaz@kylheku.com (Kaz Kylheku) (2015-02-09)
Re: Grammar with low-precedence postfix operator? DrDiettrich1@netscape.net (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2015-02-09)
[3 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Robert Jacobson <rljacobson@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 13:27:31 -0500 (EST)
Organization: Compilers Central
Keywords: parse, question
Posted-Date: 05 Feb 2015 13:27:31 EST

I'm trying to write an ANTLR4 grammar for a language with a low precedence
postfix operator (Wolfram Language with '&', but I use a simple toy grammar
below). I'm struggling with finding the right pattern to express this
language.


Consider my (incorrect) grammar below that parses math expressions:


<snip>
grammar MathExpression;


//Parser Rules
term
: INT
| '(' expr ')' //parentheses
| <assoc=right> term '^' term //exponentiation
| term term //implicit multiplication
;


expr
: term
| ('+' | '-') expr //unary plus/minus
| expr ('/' | '*') expr //division and explicit multiplication
| expr ('+' | '-') expr //addition/subtraction
| expr '++' //increment
;


//Lexer Rules
INT : [0-9]+ ;
WS : [ \t\r\n]+ -> skip ;
<snip>


The problem with this grammar is that the generated parser chokes on, for
example, the input '2++^3', as '^' cannot follow '++' in this grammar. If I
get rid of implicit multiplication I can collapse the grammar into a single
rule that parses the language I am wanting, but I don't want to give up
implicit multiplication.


What's the pattern for this situation?


Incidentally, this is my first post to this group, and I am charmed to see
several authors of my textbooks among the members here.


Best,


Robert


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.