Edit Question - KnowledgeHub

Title Body

The question I wish to ask is succintly given in the title. Let me give an example of the grammar in question: identifier_list : identifier | identifier_list identifier; lambda_arguments : '(' identifier_list ')' | identifier; lambda : lambda_arguments '=>' expression Then we add in the normal C expression grammar- particularly, primary_expression : '(' expression ')' | identifier | lambda; The real question is, is this grammar LALR(1) parsable, i.e., capable of being parsed by automated parser generators? Or does it require a hand-rolled or GLR parser? Note that I wish to know specifically about this subsection, not the context-sensitive keywords stuff or any other section. What I'm thinking right now is that if the parser sees '(' identifier ')' , this has two valid parses, so if the parser sees identifier , looks ahead to ')' , it won't be able to decide which parse tree to go down. This could just be a shift/reduce conflict, though, that I could eliminate by assigning some arbitrary precedence (probably favouriing '(' identifier ')' ). Edit: Actually, I was considering stealing using this subsection of the grammar for a similar feature in a new language. I already have anonymous functions similar to JavaScript in grammatical form but my guinea pigs squeaks feedback complains they are too verbose for many uses, and pointed out the C# lambda expressions as a more ideal solution. I was concerned about potential ambiguity resulting from this solution. So, really, I was only interested in that subsection. The other stuff like generics and casts are non-issues for me. Previous editions of my grammar are mechanically parsable and I wouldn't want to lose this property, and my previous experience with a mechanical generator tells me that it's best to check he

Tags (comma-separated) Cancel