This might be because the rules I have in place are not complete (I'm not implementing a complete D expression parser), but I have my doubts on this, and currently leaning on a possible problem in the documentation.


I've built up rules in yacc based on what's documented here: http://dlang.org/expression.html

However I seem to be getting shift/reduce conflicts around:

AndAndExpression:
        OrExpression
|       AndAndExpression && OrExpression
        CmpExpression
|       AndAndExpression && CmpExpression
;

OrExpression:
        XorExpression
|       OrExpression | XorExpression
;

XorExpression:
        AndExpression
|       XorExpression ^ AndExpression
;

AndExpression:
        ShiftExpression
|       AndExpression & ShiftExpression
;

CmpExpression:
        ShiftExpression
|       EqualExpression
|       IdentityExpression
|       RelExpression
;

CmpExpression:
        ShiftExpression
|       EqualExpression
|       IdentityExpression
|       RelExpression
;


---
Conflict between 'XorExpression: XorExpression '^' AndExpression' and token '&'
Conflict between 'ShiftExpression: ShiftExpression RSH AddExpression' and token '+'
Conflict between 'ShiftExpression: ShiftExpression RSH AddExpression' and token '-'
Conflict between 'ShiftExpression: ShiftExpression LSH AddExpression' and token '+'
Conflict between 'ShiftExpression: ShiftExpression LSH AddExpression' and token '-'
Conflict between 'AddExpression: AddExpression '+' MulExpression' and token '*'
Conflict between 'AddExpression: AddExpression '-' MulExpression' and token '*'
---


It's not too much of a problem, I can tweak it (so it follows same-ish rules as Java) and it will pass just fine:

AndAndExpression:
        OrExpression
|       AndAndExpression && OrExpression
;

OrExpression:
        XorExpression
|       OrExpression | XorExpression
;

XorExpression:
        AndExpression
|       XorExpression ^ AndExpression
;

AndExpression:
        CmpExpression
|       AndExpression & CmpExpression
;

CmpExpression:
        ShiftExpression
|       EqualExpression
|       IdentityExpression
|       RelExpression
;


I'm just curious if anyone else has stumbled onto this, and whether or not it's just human error on my part.  :o)

Regards
Iain.

On Thursday, 13 February 2014 at 00:00:11 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> I'm just curious if anyone else has stumbled onto this, and whether or not it's just human error on my part.  :o)
>
> Regards
> Iain.

It's dangerous to go alone. Take this!

https://github.com/Hackerpilot/DGrammar

On 13 February 2014 00:06, Brian Schott <briancschott@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 13 February 2014 at 00:00:11 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>
>> I'm just curious if anyone else has stumbled onto this, and whether or not it's just human error on my part.  :o)
>>
>> Regards
>> Iain.
>
>
> It's dangerous to go alone. Take this!
>
> https://github.com/Hackerpilot/DGrammar

Thanks!  Having a look at D.g4, I'm seeing that you do the same with the rules:

andAndExpression:
      orExpression
    | andAndExpression '&&' orExpression
    ;

/*...*/

andExpression:
      cmpExpression
    | andExpression '&' cmpExpression
    ;

cmpExpression:
      shiftExpression
    | equalExpression
    | identityExpression
    | relExpression
    | inExpression
    ;

On 13 February 2014 00:18, Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw@gdcproject.org> wrote:
> On 13 February 2014 00:06, Brian Schott <briancschott@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thursday, 13 February 2014 at 00:00:11 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm just curious if anyone else has stumbled onto this, and whether or not it's just human error on my part.  :o)
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Iain.
>>
>>
>> It's dangerous to go alone. Take this!
>>
>> https://github.com/Hackerpilot/DGrammar
>
> Thanks!  Having a look at D.g4, I'm seeing that you do the same with the rules:
>

In any case, everything looks lean enough that I'll probably believe your documented grammar more than the official dlang site. ;-)

On 2/12/2014 4:24 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> In any case, everything looks lean enough that I'll probably believe
> your documented grammar more than the official dlang site. ;-)

Should issue pull requests for errors found in the grammar!

On 13 February 2014 01:16, Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:
> On 2/12/2014 4:24 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>
>> In any case, everything looks lean enough that I'll probably believe your documented grammar more than the official dlang site. ;-)
>
>
> Should issue pull requests for errors found in the grammar!

Will do ... in the morning.

On Thursday, 13 February 2014 at 01:16:47 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 2/12/2014 4:24 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>> In any case, everything looks lean enough that I'll probably believe
>> your documented grammar more than the official dlang site. ;-)
>
> Should issue pull requests for errors found in the grammar!

Use of my parser keeps finding places where my grammar is wrong. Here's an example from today:

https://github.com/Hackerpilot/Dscanner/commit/54118e905f55239fb7c03c101db84b22e4368e51#diff-6331f8b31e134d0bacb245c850fe5404

This reminds me that I haven't synchronized the parser's doc comments with that ANTLR file in a while. Hopefully I'll have time for that on the weekend.

On Thursday, 13 February 2014 at 01:28:39 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> On 13 February 2014 01:16, Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>> On 2/12/2014 4:24 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>>
>>> In any case, everything looks lean enough that I'll probably believe
>>> your documented grammar more than the official dlang site. ;-)
>>
>>
>> Should issue pull requests for errors found in the grammar!
>
> Will do ... in the morning.

See_also: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10233

On 2/12/2014 5:37 PM, Brian Schott wrote:
> On Thursday, 13 February 2014 at 01:28:39 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>> On 13 February 2014 01:16, Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>>> On 2/12/2014 4:24 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In any case, everything looks lean enough that I'll probably believe
>>>> your documented grammar more than the official dlang site. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>> Should issue pull requests for errors found in the grammar!
>>
>> Will do ... in the morning.
>
> See_also: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10233

Thank you. It's important to make such a log of all such errors you find, otherwise the next poor soul will have to suffer through it all over again.

2014-02-13 9:24 GMT+09:00 Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw@gdcproject.org>:

> On 13 February 2014 00:18, Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw@gdcproject.org> wrote:
> > On 13 February 2014 00:06, Brian Schott <briancschott@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Thursday, 13 February 2014 at 00:00:11 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I'm just curious if anyone else has stumbled onto this, and whether or
> not
> >>> it's just human error on my part.  :o)
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>> Iain.
> >>
> >>
> >> It's dangerous to go alone. Take this!
> >>
> >> https://github.com/Hackerpilot/DGrammar
> >
> > Thanks!  Having a look at D.g4, I'm seeing that you do the same with the
> rules:
> >
>
> In any case, everything looks lean enough that I'll probably believe your documented grammar more than the official dlang site. ;-)
>

In git head, 'Grammar' page is added.

https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dlang.org/blob/master/grammar.dd

Kenji Hara