Re: strict productions

> I can’t say I follow you exactly...
>
Hello Bastiaan,

Is the sentence a(x).field1.field2 a syntactically valid outcome of the 
function-access production?

1) function-access                       = component- function access
2) component-function-access   = record-function-access

substituting 2) in 1)
3) function-access                       = record-function-access

4) record-function-access          = record-function '.' field-specifier
substituting 4) in 3)

5) function-access                       = record-function '.' 
field-specifier

6) record-function                        = function-access
substituting 6) in 5)

7) function-access                       = function-access '.' 
field-specifier

which makes function-access left recursive.

Is 7) lexically valid but semantically invalid because function-access 
'.' field-specifier can not be a function-access?
>  I do remember seeing ambiguities in variable access and function 
> access, which I imagine can be resolved by keeping a symbol table of 
> earlier definitions.
>
I am keeping a symbol table for that purpose.

I am staying away from compiler-compilers in order to make the parser 
more approachable and less abstract. It is recursive descent written in 
10206 compliant pascal.

Regards,

Paul Isaacs


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