[antlr-interest] How to do "not" in a syntactic predicate?

[Naveen Chawla]

Yikes, that doesn't seem to work, it seems to give a normal positive
predicate for me. (Or something). But not "if a not followed by b" => a.

?

2009/10/14 Indhu Bharathi <indhu.b at s7software.com>

>  The other say I replied from my ipod and was not able to test it with
> ANTLR. I checked it now and the code doesn’t work for me too. However you
> can try a variant:
>
>
>
> q             :               a ((b)=>NOWAY | /*nothing*/)
>
>                 ;
>
>
>
> fragment NOWAY
>
>                 :               ;
>
>
>
> This is tested J But note that this is only a hack and use it only when
> there is no other alternative.
>
>
>
> Going by your “one of my "smaller" rules is "consuming" something that
> should belong to a "larger" rule” description, it looks like you can solve
> that problem by turning off greedy. Grep for ‘greedy’ in the book or wiki.
>
>
>
> Cheers, Indhu
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* antlr-interest-bounces at antlr.org [mailto:
> antlr-interest-bounces at antlr.org] *On Behalf Of *Naveen Chawla
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 14, 2009 3:50 PM
> *To:* Jim Idle
> *Cc:* antlr-interest at antlr.org
> *Subject:* Re: [antlr-interest] How to do "not" in a syntactic predicate?
>
>
>
> Jim, being new to predicates I realised soon after this that you were
> talking about token lookaheads. And yes I do need a syntactic lookahead (but
> thas is negative). In beginner-speak, one of my "smaller" rules is
> "consuming" something that should belong to a "larger" rule. This would be
> correct if that particular something (e.g. "a") was *not* followed by a
> syntactic construct conforming to "b". Hence (a !b)=>a (for the smaller
> rule) seems the simplest solution to this to me. Is Indhu's version correct
> for doing this trick? It doesn't seem to work for me (but I might be doing
> something else wrong). If not correct, what is the correct way? My target is
> Java.
>
> 2009/10/5 Jim Idle <jimi at temporal-wave.com>
>
> Use a semantic predicate rather than syntactic. You possibly need a bated
> predicate here too:
>
>
>
> { input.LA(1) == A && input.LA(2) != B}?=>
>
>
>
> However, if you need that kind of syntactic predicate, then I suggest you
> may be approaching your problem incorrectly.
>
>
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> *From:* antlr-interest-bounces at antlr.org [mailto:
> antlr-interest-bounces at antlr.org] *On Behalf Of *Naveen Chawla
> *Sent:* Monday, October 05, 2009 7:02 AM
>
>
> *To:* antlr-interest at antlr.org
> *Subject:* [antlr-interest] How to do "not" in a syntactic predicate?
>
>
>
> If I do
>
>
>
> (a ~b)=> a
>
>
>
> meaning "take this alternative if you encounter an a when not followed by
> b"
>
>
>
> I get a syntax error: unexpected token b
>
> Is it the right syntax to use '~'?
>
>
>
> N
>
>
>
> List: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-interest
> Unsubscribe:
> http://www.antlr.org/mailman/options/antlr-interest/your-email-address
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.antlr.org/pipermail/antlr-interest/attachments/20091014/8f65e7a5/attachment.html