Re: Dynamic tokens

> On 3 Feb 2020, at 16:33, Ervin Hegedüs <[email protected]> wrote:
…
>>> Example from the language:
>>> @eq 1
>>> @lt 2
>>> @streq foo
>>> 
>>> The problem is that the LANG_OP_ARGUMENT could be anything - for example,
>>> that could be also starts with "@". So, the next expression is valid:
>>> 
>>> @streq @streq
>> 
>> So here you might have a context switch that is set when the operator token comes, that says that the next token, even if it is a valid operator name, should be treated as an argument. It when the argument is finished, set the switch back.
>> 
>>> Now I'm using this rules:
>>> @[a-z][a-zA-Z0-9]+     { BEGIN(ST_LANG_OP); return LANG_OP; }
>>> <ST_LANG_OP>....
>>> 
>>> but now the operator isn't optional.
>> 
>> Something must follow in the grammar, so the switch may be set back in the grammar. Check in the .output file for clues.
> 
> so, you think (if I understand correctly) something like this:
> 
> @[a-z][a-zA-Z0-9]+      { BEGIN(ST_LANG_OP); if(op_valid(yytext); { return LANG_OP; } else { ... } }
> <ST_LANG_OP>….

Something like that.