Re: Grammar with low-precedence postfix operator?

Path	csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.lightlink.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED!nerds-end
From	jgk@panix.com (Joe keane)
Newsgroups	comp.compilers
Subject	Re: Grammar with low-precedence postfix operator?
Date	Tue, 10 Feb 2015 21:03:24 +0000 (UTC)
Organization	Public Access Networks Corp.
Lines	48
Sender	news@iecc.com
Approved	comp.compilers@iecc.com
Message-ID	<15-02-024@comp.compilers> (permalink)
References	<15-02-006@comp.compilers> <15-02-014@comp.compilers>
NNTP-Posting-Host	news.iecc.com
X-Trace	miucha.iecc.com 1423619250 34428 2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970 (11 Feb 2015 01:47:30 GMT)
X-Complaints-To	abuse@iecc.com
NNTP-Posting-Date	Wed, 11 Feb 2015 01:47:30 +0000 (UTC)
Keywords	parse, design
Posted-Date	10 Feb 2015 20:47:30 EST
X-submission-address	compilers@iecc.com
X-moderator-address	compilers-request@iecc.com
X-FAQ-and-archives	http://compilers.iecc.com
Xref	csiph.com comp.compilers:1526

Show key headers only | View raw

Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>For your example involving ^ and ++, I think that one should use
>parentheses explicitly in most cases, e.g. (a^b)++^c or a^(b++)^c.
>You can leave away the parentheses if there is no ambiguity, as in
>your 2++^3, but that's not straightforward to express in BNF.

gcc does something like this

You can say:

	if (x & y == 0)

probable error, warn or reject

	if ((x & y) == 0)

OK

	if (x & (y == 0))

OK, if that's what you want

I don't know how it is implemented.

	if (x == 1 && y == 2)

fine IMHO

	if ((x == 1) && (y == 2))

too many parens

	if (((x >= 1) && (x <= 2)) || ((y >= 1) && (y <= 2)))

way too many parens IMHO, but shouldn't reject

The reason you don't want to reject these is that,
besides that it's style, they could come from macros.

If you color parens in macros, you could also look out for macros:

#define SUM(X, Y) (X)+(Y)

probable error

#define DOUBLE(X) (2*X)

probable error

Thread

Grammar with low-precedence postfix operator? Robert Jacobson <rljacobson@gmail.com> - 2015-02-05 13:27 -0500
  Re: Grammar with low-precedence postfix operator? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-02-05 21:10 +0000
    Re: Grammar with low-precedence postfix operator? Robert Jacobson <rljacobson@gmail.com> - 2015-02-07 10:30 -0800
  Re: Grammar with low-precedence postfix operator? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-02-07 11:27 +0000
    Re: Grammar with low-precedence postfix operator? jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2015-02-10 21:03 +0000
      Re: Grammar with low-precedence postfix operator? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-02-11 02:19 +0000
  Re: Grammar with low-precedence postfix operator? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2015-02-08 12:34 -0500
    Re: Grammar with low-precedence postfix operator? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-02-09 01:24 +0000
      Re: Grammar with low-precedence postfix operator? Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@netscape.net> - 2015-02-09 08:05 +0100
  Re: Grammar with low-precedence postfix operator? Robert Jacobson <rljacobson@gmail.com> - 2015-02-21 12:55 -0800

csiph-web