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:
>> 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)
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.
> 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