[antlr-interest] best way to deal with nested statements
Gordon Tyler
Gordon.Tyler at quest.com
Fri Jun 25 06:50:49 PDT 2010
Why not something like this:
statements: (stuff|codeBlock);
codeBlock: BEGIN statements END;
-----Original Message-----
From: antlr-interest-bounces at antlr.org [mailto:antlr-interest-bounces at antlr.org] On Behalf Of Scherer Markus
Sent: June 25, 2010 9:03 AM
To: antlr-interest at antlr.org
Subject: [antlr-interest] best way to deal with nested statements
Hi there antlr folk!
As I have mentioned in a former thread I am currently working on a grammar that splits SQL*PLUS files in normal SQL-statements and PL/SQL-blocks.
The PL/SQL-blocks are a bit tricky, because the can contain nested blocks like
BEGIN
…
BEGIN
…
END;
END;
I thought about a mechanism, that increases a counter when a BEGIN is found and decreases it when a END; is found:
@members {
int _iNestLevel = 0;
}
pl_sql_block
:
( ((BEGIN {System.out.println("begin (nestlevel: " + (++_iNestLevel) + ")");})| DECLARE)
| CREATE (OR REPLACE
|PROCEDURE
|FUNCTION
|PACKAGE)
) pl_sql_block_content
;
pl_sql_block_content
: {_iNestLevel < 16}? (options {greedy=false;} : .)*
( BEGIN {System.out.println("begin (nestlevel: " + (++_iNestLevel) + ")");}
| END SEMI{System.out.println("end (nestlevel: " + (--_iNestLevel) + ")");})
( {_iNestLevel > 0}? pl_sql_block_content
)
;
I tried to eliminate recursion-issues with the predicates, but antlr nevertheless considers the grammar wrong and throws following error when I try to compile it:
[14:46:43] error(206): PLSQLSplitter.g:62:34: Alternative 2: after matching input such as SEMI SL_COMMENT ML_COMMENT BEGIN BEGIN SEMI END SEMI END SEMI END SEMI BEGIN decision cannot predict what comes next due to recursion overflow to pl_sql_block_content from pl_sql_block_content
The second solution that came to my mind was a proper recursive grammar (like e.g. the expression grammar from the book), but I think that’s a little overkill for a simple splitter.
I attached the whole grammar in case the error isn’t obvious from the two rules above.
Thanks in advance
Markus
More information about the antlr-interest
mailing list