Fix non-associativity of non-eq comparison ops in LL1 grammar #4
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
This patch only fixes PA1B. Although PA1A specifies that '<=' is nonassoc, we can still write Maybe we just accept that, and let the subsequent semantic analysis do the job? |
Hoblovski
added
question
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Non-equal comparison operators such as <, >, ge, le come without associativity, yet current LL(1) grammar treats them as left associative, which can bring about erroneous parsing output when handling
a < b < c(this form should have triggered a syntax error)