Bastiaan at Veelo.net
Thu Feb 16 09:50:38 CET 2017
> 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.
More information about the Gpc