Re: Is Fortran90 LL(1)?

>[To parse Fortran, you have to tell whether a statement is an
>assignment (or statement function) or something else. First, if you
>accept the old 3Hfoo Hollerith constants, you strip them out, being
>careful not to be confused by REAL*4HELLO. Then you look for an equal
>sign not protected by parentheses, and not followed by a comma which
>also must not be protected by parentheses. If you find the equal
>sign, and no comma, it's an assignment or a statement function. If
>not, it's something else. Once you've decided that, the lexing and
>parsing are pretty straightforward, with the parser at each stage
>having to tell the lexer what kind of tokens to look for. See my
>sample Fortran subset parser in the archives for an example of all
>this nonsense. -John]


There are still some tricky points in writing a Fortran grammar.
One problem is distinguishing a complex constant from an implied
DO-loop in a WRITE statement.


            WRITE (*, *) (1.0, 0.0)


and


            WRITE (*, *) (1.0, I = 1, 10)


look quite similar up to the second comma. A common way of dealing
with this case is to relax the restriction that the first part of a
complex constant must be a real or integer constant. Semantic routines
can report the error later if desired.


Sincerely,
Bob Corbett
[Yeah, in my compiler I allowed (exp,exp) as a general complex constructor,
and enforced the constant restriction semantically in places where I had to,
e.g. data statements. -John]




--

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