Reputation: 3342
I have read many questions here on StackOverflow about mutual left-recursion issues in LL(k) parsers. I found the general algorithm for removing left-recursion:
A : Aa | b ;
becomes
A : bR ;
R : (aA)? ;
However, I cannot figure out how to apply it to my situation. I have
left_exp: IDENT | exp DOT IDENT ;
exp : handful
| of
| other rules
| left_exp ;
The "handful of other rules" all contain regular recursion, such as exp : exp PLUS exp
, etc. and have no issues. The issue is with left_exp
and exp
being mutually recursive.
I thought about just adding IDENT
and exp DOT IDENT
to the exp
rules, but there are some situations where the other valid exp
rules do not apply, where left_exp
would be valid.
EDIT
I also have the following rule, which calls for a left expression followed by assignment.
assign_statement: left_exp ( COLON IDENT )? EQUAL exp SEMI ;
Since a regular expression is only a left expression if it is followed by DOT IDENT, it seems that I can't just add
| IDENT
| exp DOT IDENT
to my expression definition, because then assignment would accept any other valid expression on the left side, rather than only one of those two.
Upvotes: 2
Views: 781
Reputation: 53317
The approach I apply usually goes like this:
A: Aa | b;
becomes:
A: b (a)*;
Or in general: all alts without left recursion followed by all alts with a (removed) left recursion with unlimited occurences (expressed via the kleene operator). Example:
A: Aa | Ab | c | d | Ae;
becomes:
A: (c | d) (a | b | e)*;
You can check this easily by continuosly replacing A:
A: Aa | b;
A: (Aa | b)a | b;
A: Aaa | ba | b;
A: (Aa | b)aa | ba | b;
A: Aaaa | baa | ba | b;
etc.
In your example however you have an indirect left recursion (via 2 rules). This is not accepted by ANTLR. A solution is to move the alts from left_exp
to the exp
rule and then apply the algorithm I described above.
Upvotes: 1