CODEWITHSUNDEEP
javajavacc
Mena
Mena

Reputation: 48404

Using LOOKAHEAD in nested conditions

I am maintaining old code that uses JavaCC to parse syntax.

My .jjt file broadly looks like this:

void Top() {}
{
    Bazz() OpenParenthesis() Foo() CloseParenthesis()
}
void Foo() {}
{
    Bar() Blah() A()
}

void A() {}
{
    Z() (B() Z())*
}
void Z() {}
{
    (OpenParenthesis())? X() Y() (CloseParenthesis())?
}

Legend:

My issue is that with a "simple" input like:

bazz ( bar blah x y )

... the closing parenthesis is consumed as part of Z's condition (the 0 or 1, ? quantifier), therefore the compulsory closing parenthesis in Top produces a syntax error, where the parser would either expect B or <EOF>.

JavaCC regular expressions do not feature fine-grained quantifiers as Java regex does, so I cannot use a reluctant quantifier for Z's closing parenthesis.

I have read about the LOOKAHEAD construct (some tutorial/docs here) and figured I could use one to infer whether the ending closing parenthesis should not be consumed by Z, thus re-writing Z as:

void Z() {}
{
    (OpenParenthesis())? X() Y() (LOOKAHEAD(1) CloseParenthesis())?
}

I've also monkeyed around with the size of the lookahead.

Unfortunately, either I do not understand the feature, or the lookahead will not work with hierachical syntax such as the one illustrated above.

Among the choices of poor workarounds I have found so far:

Obviously neither satisfies me at all.

Have I overlooked something?

Upvotes: 2

Views: 244

Answers (1)

Theodore Norvell
Theodore Norvell

Reputation: 16221

Maybe I'm missing the intent of your code, but the rule 

void Z() {}
{
    (OpenParenthesis())? X() Y() (CloseParenthesis())?
}

just looks very odd to me. Do you really want that all of the following sequences can be parsed as Z?

( x y )
x y
( x y
x y )

If you think the last two should not be parsed as Z, then change the rule to 

void Z() {}
{
    OpenParenthesis() X() Y() CloseParenthesis()
|
    X() Y()
}

If you really really really want Z to be the way it is, make a comment and I'll submit a solution that will work, at least for the example above

Upvotes: 2

Related Questions