Re: strict productions

On 15/02/17 03:06 AM, Bastiaan Veelo wrote:
>
>> On 15 Feb 2017, at 08:10, Paul Isaacs <[email protected] 
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>> x( a,b,c)[ 6,7,8 ] being valid and it is not.
>
> I think it is. This compiles and runs:
>
Bastiaan,

Thanks! You're right. I'm finding it hard to go from the productions to 
code when the productions are recursive through intermediates.

Interesting:

function-access1 = record-function1.field1  => using 
function-access|record-function
record-function1 = function-access2         => using record-function 
production
function-access2 = record-function2.field2  => using 
function-access|record-function
record-function2 = x( a )                   => using 
function-access|entire-function

function-access2 = x( a ).field2            => reducing function-access2
record-function1 = x( a ).field2            => reducing record-function1
function-access1 = x( a ).field2.field1     => reducing function-access1

x( a ).field2 compiles and executes

x( a ).field2.field1 of course does not compile unless field1 is a field 
of field2.
But is it a syntacticly correct result of these productions?
If so is it an ambiguity in the grammar? Do the productions have 
precedence rules?
e.g. variable-access has higher precedence than function-access

Regards,

Paul Isaacs

_______________________________________________
Gpc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.g-n-u.de/mailman/listinfo/gpc