[antlr-interest] Re: Semantic predicates that aren't & hoisting

[John D. Mitchell]

>>>>> "David" == David Jung <jungdl at ornl.gov> writes:
>>>>>> John D. Mitchell said:
[...]

> You're right.  Good spotting.  However, I still get the same result when
> changed to LCURLY.  So, one of us is going mad (probably me).  Perhaps I
> am still missing something - what first and second alternative are you
> speaking of?

exprList.

> The whole "{if...}" is an ExprList.  Within that the "if {a>0;} then
> {f();g();}" can only be an expr, can't it?  (can't be an exprList as it
> doesn't start with a '{', hence it needs a trailing ';').

Really look at the trace information and see the flow through the grammar.


> Here is the output for "{if {a>0;} then {f();g();} x();}" :

Ugh.  Notice how your example input is actually malformed...

{if {a>0;} then {f();g();} x();}

I.e., your grammar only allows one expression for the then block but you're
trying to put in a sequence of expressions ("{f();g();} x();").

So, the parser sees the 'x' but it's expecting e.g., the closing RCURLY.

Take care,
	John