Skip to content
GitLab
Menu
Projects
Groups
Snippets
Loading...
Help
Help
Support
Community forum
Keyboard shortcuts
?
Submit feedback
Sign in / Register
Toggle navigation
Menu
Open sidebar
Glasgow Haskell Compiler
GHC
Commits
05eae534
Commit
05eae534
authored
Nov 29, 2004
by
simonpj
Browse files
[project @ 20041129 16:16:57 by simonpj]
Update ambiguity errors
parent
c73c3891
Changes
1
Hide whitespace changes
Inline
Sidebyside
ghc/compiler/parser/Parser.y.pp
View file @
05eae534
...
...
@@ 46,36 +46,49 @@ import GLAEXTS
{


Conflicts
:
3
3
shift
/
reduce
,
[
SDM
19
/
9
/
2002
]
Conflicts
:
3
4
shift
/
reduce
(
1.15
)
10
for
abiguity
in
'if x then y else z + 1'
[
State
1
36
]
10
for
abiguity
in
'if x then y else z + 1'
[
State
1
78
]
(
shift
parses
as
'if x then y else (z + 1)'
,
as
per
longest

parse
rule
)
10
because
op
might
be
:
:

!
*
.
`
x
`
VARSYM
CONSYM
QVARSYM
QCONSYM
1
for
ambiguity
in
'if x then y else z with ?x=3'
[
State
136
]
(
shift
parses
as
'if x then y else (z with ?x=3)'
1
for
ambiguity
in
'if x then y else z :: T'
[
State
136
]
1
for
ambiguity
in
'if x then y else z :: T'
[
State
178
]
(
shift
parses
as
'if x then y else (z :: T)'
,
as
per
longest

parse
rule
)
4
for
ambiguity
in
'if x then y else z < e'
4
for
ambiguity
in
'if x then y else z < e'
[
State
178
]
(
shift
parses
as
'if x then y else (z < T)'
,
as
per
longest

parse
rule
)
There
are
four
such
operators
:
<
,
>
,
<<
,
>>
2
for
ambiguity
in
'case v of { x :: T > T ... } '
[
States
11
,
253
]
Which
of
these
two
is
intended
?
case
v
of
(
x::T
)
>
T

Rhs
is
T
or
case
v
of
(
x::T
>
T
)
>
..

Rhs
is
...
8
for
ambiguity
in
'e :: a `b` c'
.
Does
this
mean
[
States
1
60
,
246
]
8
for
ambiguity
in
'e :: a `b` c'
.
Does
this
mean
[
States
1
1
,
253
]
(
e::a
)
`
b
`
c
,
or
(
e
::
(
a
`
b
`
c
))
As
well
as
`
b
`
we
can
have
!
,
QCONSYM
,
and
CONSYM
,
hence
3
cases
Same
duplication
between
states
11
and
253
as
the
previous
case
1
for
ambiguity
in
'let ?x ...'
[
State
268
]
1
for
ambiguity
in
'let ?x ...'
[
State
329
]
the
parser
can
't tell whether the ?x is the lhs of a normal binding or
an implicit binding. Fortunately resolving as shift gives it the only
sensible meaning, namely the lhs of an implicit binding.
1 for ambiguity in '
{

# RULES "name" [ ... #} [State 3
3
2]
1 for ambiguity in '
{

# RULES "name" [ ... #} [State 3
8
2]
we
don
't know whether the '
[
' starts the activation or not: it
might be the start of the declaration with the activation being
empty. SDM 1/4/2002
1 for ambiguity in '
{

# RULES "name" forall = ... #}' [State 394]
6 for conflicts between `fdecl'
and
`
fdeclDEPRECATED
', [States 393,394]
which are resolved correctly, and moreover,
should go away when `fdeclDEPRECATED'
is
removed
.
1
for
ambiguity
in
'{# RULES "name" forall = ... #}'
[
State
474
]
since
'forall'
is
a
valid
variable
name
,
we
don
't know whether
to treat a forall on the input as the beginning of a quantifier
or the beginning of the rule itself. Resolving to shift means
...
...
@@ 83,10 +96,6 @@ Conflicts: 33 shift/reduce, [SDM 19/9/2002]
This
saves
explicitly
defining
a
grammar
for
the
rule
lhs
that
doesn
't include '
forall
'.
6 for conflicts between `fdecl'
and
`
fdeclDEPRECATED
', [States 384,385]
which are resolved correctly, and moreover,
should go away when `fdeclDEPRECATED'
is
removed
.
 
 Adding location info
...
...
Write
Preview
Markdown
is supported
0%
Try again
or
attach a new file
.
Attach a file
Cancel
You are about to add
0
people
to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Cancel
Please
register
or
sign in
to comment