|precedences vs. hierarchy firstname.lastname@example.org (Andreas Schramm) (2016-06-06)|
|Re: precedences vs. hierarchy email@example.com (Dmitry A. Kazakov) (2016-06-06)|
|Re: precedences vs. hierarchy firstname.lastname@example.org (George Neuner) (2016-06-06)|
|Re: precedences vs. hierarchy email@example.com (2016-06-06)|
|precedences vs. hierarchy firstname.lastname@example.org (SLK Mail) (2016-06-07)|
|Re: precedences vs. hierarchy email@example.com (Kaz Kylheku) (2016-06-07)|
|Re: precedences vs. hierarchy firstname.lastname@example.org (Dmitry A. Kazakov) (2016-06-07)|
|Re: precedences vs. hierarchy email@example.com (2016-06-08)|
|From:||Kaz Kylheku <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||Tue, 7 Jun 2016 15:35:56 +0000 (UTC)|
|Organization:||Aioe.org NNTP Server|
|Injection-Info:||miucha.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="54517"; mail-complaints-to="email@example.com"|
|Posted-Date:||07 Jun 2016 12:59:09 EDT|
On 2016-06-06, Dmitry A. Kazakov <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 06/06/2016 09:08, Andreas Schramm wrote:
>> for specifying the syntax of operator expressions
>> with multiple levels of precedences,
>> there are essentially two approaches:
>> (i) by precedence and associativity declarations, and
>> (ii) by a hierarchy of non-terminals.
> (iii) By only precedence, which I prefer. Associativity is not needed if
> operator precedence is split into the left and right ones. That allows
> to express any associativity, unary operators included.
You need the concept of associativity to tell whether
A + B + C is (A + B) + C or A + (B + C).
The + here is the same operator and so it precedence is equal to itself.
Moreover, it may be on the same precedence level as other operators such
as the binary -.
In table shift-reduce parsers (Yacc, and such), associativity rules
When the generated parser has seen the input A + B, and the lookahead
symbol is +, it needs to know whether to shift the + (right
associativity), or to reduce the A + B (left associativity).
Unary and postfix operators do not require associativity because
they are not ambiguous. op op op expr where op is a unary op,
this can only mean op ( op ( op expr )), by the grammar alone.
Ambiguity arises if there are both postfix and prefix operators
hanging on the same expression; that is resolved by precedence.
[If you can specify the left and right precedence for an operator
separately, that gives you the associativity. -John]
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.