31 Jan
2016
31 Jan
'16
3:21 p.m.
The main problem is that there is no PS/SQL BNF available.
I found a SQL92 but nothing else.
I found a lexer in antlr but nothing else.
Le 31/1/16 12:01, Thierry Goubier a écrit :
Le 31/01/2016 11:44, Nicolas Anquetil a écrit :
On 31/01/2016 07:07, Tudor Girba wrote:
Most languages have quirks in the grammar which makes it difficult.
Unexpectedly, LR/LALR type approaches may help because they point out
inconsistencies at the grammar compilation stage.
Would it be possible to provide an isolated case
so that we can debug
this?
the isolated test case is in the mail
for the grammar, I am afraid this will be difficult.
It is not my grammar but the postgres sql one that Anne and Olivier are
creating.
It is their first grammar and despite their best efforts, it shows
(without blaming anyone, we all know how difficult it can be to create a
full-fledged grammar, and frankly full postgres is proving far more
complex that I would have ever thought) I am trying to rationalise and simplify their
grammar to understand
these problems
Probably the right approach.
A simple test I'd do is take parts of it and have a look to the
conflicts raised in SmaCC... The grammar syntax is so similar between
both that you can switch between the two technologies, and, anyway,
given it is a full-fledged grammar, in won't be any longuer in any of
the parser tech available.
Thierry
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch
https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev