strict productions

Bastiaan Veelo Bastiaan at Veelo.net
Thu Feb 16 09:50:38 CET 2017


Hello Paul,

> On 16 Feb 2017, at 02:49, Paul Isaacs <paul at redpineinstruments.org> wrote:
> 
> Is the sentence a(x).field1.field2 a syntactically valid outcome of the function-access production?

I think so, but the water is getting deeper.

> 
> 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 see. Interesting question.

I have not concerned myself with semantic analysis. My objective was to translate working EP code into D code, and recon that semantics (and ambiguity even) can be disregarded in that application.

Bastiaan.


More information about the Gpc mailing list