![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png) simont |
Wed 2017-03-29 08:59 |
|
More parser theory I had a conversation recently about low-priority prefix operators in infix expression grammars, which left me mildly uncertain about what they ought to mean. So here's a quick straw poll.Suppose I have an expression grammar in which the multiplication operator * and the addition operator + have their usual relative priority (namely, * binds more tightly, i.e. is evaluated first). Then suppose I – perhaps unwisely – introduce a prefix operator, which I'll call PFX for want of a better name, which has intermediate priority between the two, so that PFX a + b behaves like (PFX a) + b, i.e. the PFX is evaluated firstPFX a * b behaves like PFX (a * b), i.e. the PFX is evaluated second.
That's simple enough (if unusual). But things get weirder when PFX appears on the right of another operator. Specifically, what would you imagine happens to this expression:a * PFX b + c in which you can't process the operators in priority order (* then PFX then +) because the PFX necessarily has to happen before the *.
Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 10 In what order should the parser process those operators?
View AnswersPFX then * then + to give (a * (PFX b)) + c
5 (50.0%) + then PFX then * to give a * (PFX (b + c))
0 (0.0%) PFX then + then * to give a * ((PFX b) + c)
0 (0.0%) None! Report a parse error and demand some disambiguating parentheses.
4 (40.0%) Low-priority prefix operators misparsed my grandparents, you insensitive clod
1 (10.0%) |
|