[antlr-interest] uh oh...trouble in meaning of (..)=> pred!!!

[Terence Parr]

On Mar 15, 2007, at 12:32 AM, Gavin Lambert wrote:

> Although it would be nicer if there was a simpler way to express  
> them -- since this sort of predicate will usually be of the form  
> "(a b c d) => a b" (ie. the matching portion is a strict prefix to  
> the predicate), maybe this could be rewritten as something like "a  
> b <c d>" (symbols just a suggestion; go with whatever makes more  
> sense) to indicate that the tokens/rules at the end need to match  
> but not be removed from the input stream and not be part of the  
> production.  But that's mostly syntactic sugar, so can probably wait.

Hi. I believe a PEG would do

a b &c &d

using & predicates that match but don't consume.

Auto backtracking will do the optimal "use synpred only if LL(*)  
fails", but (...)=> manual predicates will force backtracking to eval  
the pred.  I can't know what's inside compared to alt whereas with  
auto backtracking pred is copy of alt.

Ter