Thanks. That's what I end up doing.
--- Hans Aberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As Henrik Sorensen points out, you need to be more
> specific about the
> grammar you want to produce. Here is a suggestion
> though:
>
> %token YYID
> %%
> expression:
> hier_id
>| method_call
>| paren_
As Henrik Sorensen points out, you need to be more specific about the
grammar you want to produce. Here is a suggestion though:
%token YYID
%%
expression:
hier_id
| method_call
| paren_expr
;
paren_expr:
'(' expression ')'
;
method_call:
paren_expr '.' YYID paren_expr
;
hier_id :
On Monday 28 March 2005 00.20, Soumitra Kumar wrote:
> 1+3.YYID(7) has no meaning. But following is a valid
> expression:
> (YYID + YYID).YYID().YYID () + YYID() + YYID.YYID() +
> YYID.YYID
for this reduction to make any sense, you need to show more of your grammar.
What kind of operator is '.' in
1+3.YYID(7) has no meaning. But following is a valid
expression:
(YYID + YYID).YYID().YYID () + YYID() + YYID.YYID() +
YYID.YYID
-Soumitra.
--- Henrik Sorensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> can you tell a bit more about what your grammar
> tries to achieve ?
> from your very brief description, it
can you tell a bit more about what your grammar tries to achieve ?
from your very brief description, it sounds like you can do this:
1+3.YYID(7)
but what would this mean ?
Henrik
On Sunday 27 March 2005 21.37, Soumitra Kumar wrote:
> %token YYID
> %%
> expression : hier_id
>
> | me
%token YYID
%%
expression : hier_id
| method_call
/* unary and secondary expression follows.
*/
;
method_call : expression '.' YYID '(' expression ')'
;
hier_id : YYID
| hier_id '.' YYID
;
How to resolve the shift/reduce conflict? Please help.
-So
