问题
could some one help me on this i have this rule :
e : T_NUM { $$ = mk_int($1);}
| T_POP e[l] { $$ = mk_app(mk_op(POP),$l);}
| T_NEXT e[l] { $$ = mk_app(mk_op(NEXT),$l);}
| "{" e[x] "," e[y] "}" { $$ = mk_point($x,$y);}
| e T_PLUS e { $$ = mk_app(mk_app(mk_op(PLUS),$1),$3);}
| e T_MINUS e { $$ = mk_app(mk_app(mk_op(MINUS),$1),$3);}
| e T_DIV e { $$ = mk_app(mk_app(mk_op(DIV),$1),$3);}
| e T_MULT e { $$ = mk_app(mk_app(mk_op(MULT),$1),$3);}
| e T_LEQ e { $$ = mk_app(mk_app(mk_op(LEQ),$1),$3) ;}
| e T_LE e { $$ = mk_app(mk_app(mk_op(LE),$1),$3) ;}
| e T_GEQ e { $$ = mk_app(mk_app(mk_op(GEQ),$1),$3) ;}
| e T_GE e { $$ = mk_app(mk_app(mk_op(GE),$1),$3) ;}
| e T_OR e { $$ = mk_app(mk_app(mk_op(OR),$1),$3) ;}
| e T_AND e { $$ = mk_app(mk_app(mk_op(AND),$1),$3) ;}
| T_ID { $$ = mk_id($1);}/*Reconnaissance d'identificateurs et de variables*/
| e T_EQ e { $$ = mk_app(mk_app(mk_op(EQ),$1),$3) ;}
| T_NOT e[expr] { $$ = mk_app(mk_op(NOT),$expr) ;}
| T_FUN T_ID[var] arg_list[expr] { $$ = mk_fun($var,$expr);env = push_rec_env($var,$$,env);} /*Définition de fonctions*/
| T_LET T_ID[x] T_EQUAL e[arg] T_IN e[exp] { $$ = mk_app(mk_fun($x,$exp),$arg); env = push_rec_env($x,$$,env);}/*Fonction IN*/
| e[exp] T_WHERE T_ID[x] T_EQUAL e[arg] { $$ = mk_app(mk_fun($x,$exp),$arg); env = push_rec_env($x,$$,env);}/*Fonction WHERE*/
| T_IF e[cond] T_THEN e[then_br] T_ELSE e[else_br] { $$ = mk_cond($cond, $then_br, $else_br) ;}
| '[' list[l] ']' { $$ = $l;}/*OP sur Listes*/
| e[exp] T_PUSH e[l] { $$ = mk_app(mk_app(mk_op(PUSH),$exp),$l);}
| '(' f_arg[fun] e[arg] ')' { $$ = mk_app($fun,$arg);}/*Exécution de fonctions à plusieurs variables*/
| '(' e ')' { $$ = $2;}/*Ignorer les parentheses inutiles*/
;
my problem is that at '(' f_arg[fun] e[arg] ')' i would like to remove the '()' around the syntax but this generates tons of conflicts so if some one could give me a hand on how could i change this syntax to work without the parentheses for information the f_arg:
f_arg :e {$$ = $1;}
|f_arg[fun] e[arg] {$$ = mk_app($fun,$arg);}
;
thanks all
the full code can be found at
https://github.com/WillianPaiva/project_AS
and sorry about my English
回答1:
The problem is that unadorned function application is ambiguous with respect to all of your binary infix and prefix oparators -- should an input like a b + c be parsed as (a b) + c or a (b + c)? Since there's no token involved in function application, the normal yacc/bison precedence rules won't work for it without extra help.
Assuming you want to give function application the highest precedence (the normal case, I beleive), you can make this work with some extra work.
Add the following precedence rule to the end of your list (highest precedence):
%left FUNCTION_APPLICATION T_NUM T_ID '{' '('
Make your function rule:
| e[fun] e[arg] %prec FUNCTION_APPLICATION { $$ = mk_app($fun,$arg); }
depending on what you have elsewhere in the grammar, you might need to add some more tokens to the precedence rules and/or rearrange things slightly. In particular, every token in FIRST(e) needs a precedence, and if its precedence for function application is different from its precedence for other uses, things won't work (as each token can only have one precedence). As long as function application is higher precedence than everything else, things should be resolvable.
回答2:
Well, I've not tried to compile and test it. But it looks like you are creating a loop with your rules when removing the '(' and the )'. You are saying that e->f_arg and then f_arg->e. Obviously this creates conflicts.
If you replace | '(' f_arg[fun] e[arg] ')' by | e[arg] f_arg[fun] and replace also f_arg :e by f_arg : (an empty rule) . Then, you need to reconfigure all the actions of your grammar, the code in front of every rule.
If my suggestion doesn't work, you have to figure out a way to remove that loop between e and f_arg
来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/23255623/using-yacc-precedence-for-rules-with-no-terminals-only-non-terminals