[antlr-interest] Actions and non-LL(*) rules ??

[Terence Parr]

hi. actions hide semantic predicates...got any?
T
On May 2, 2010, at 2:43 PM, Marcin Rzeźnicki wrote:

> Good day to all of you
> I have just encountered weird issue and I can't think of any way to
> resolve my problem.
> First, I prepared my grammar - free of any actions - and compiled a
> parser without an issue. Next, I started adding actions - being
> halfway done I compiled parser again to debug/check some things. It
> compiled without any error or complaint about non-LL(*) rules, mind
> you - just few ambiguities which I chose to live with as they were
> minor issue at that point. After adding few more actions, input
> parameters, results from production etc I tried to compile grammar
> again and I was surprised by ANTLR tool complaining about non-LL(*)
> alts here and there. I did not change the "structure" of the grammar,
> just added actions etc. Now, I am lost. I know this question may sound
> a bit vague, but I cannot confine this problem to anything. Does
> anyone know whether (and why) adding actions/input parameters to
> grammar's productions may confuse ANTLR to report non-LL(*)
> alternatives on previously well-defined LL(*) grammar? Thanks for any
> hints
> PS. I am not giving examples because the whole grammar is quite large
> and probably messy. Thus, I am just looking for some general hints.
> -- 
> Greetings
> Marcin Rzeźnicki
> 
> List: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-interest
> Unsubscribe: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/options/antlr-interest/your-email-address