Resolve parser choice conflicts by adjusting lookahead in index-related rules - #2217
Merged
manticore-projects merged 1 commit intoApr 8, 2025
Merged
Conversation
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor
Sorry, something went wrong.
manticore-projects
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 8, 2025
- completes #2217 Signed-off-by: Andreas Reichel <andreas@manticore-projects.com>
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor
|
Thanks, I have completed the rest. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor
Author
|
@manticore-projects |
Sorry, something went wrong.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor
If you ask me, its rather a shortcoming/problem of JavaCC itself. Your lookaheads were not wrong in my opinion and my syntax should not make any difference. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Hi @manticore-projects,
This PR addresses multiple parser choice conflicts by increasing the LOOKAHEAD values in the index-related grammar rules.
✅ Resolved Warnings:
The following conflicts have been resolved:
Warning: Choice conflict in (...)* construct at line 7661, column 5. Expansion nested within construct and expansion following construct have common prefixes, one of which is: "WITH" Consider using a lookahead of 2 or more for nested expansion. Warning: Choice conflict involving two expansions at line 7860, column 17 and line 7888, column 17 respectively. A common prefix is: "SPATIAL" "COMMENT" Consider using a lookahead of 3 or more for earlier expansion.⚠️ Remaining Warnings:
However, the following two warnings still remain:
Warning: Choice conflict in [...] construct at line 7863, column 19. Expansion nested within construct and expansion following construct have common prefixes, one of which is: "INDEX" Consider using a lookahead of 2 or more for nested expansion. Warning: Choice conflict in [...] construct at line 8363, column 9. Expansion nested within construct and expansion following construct have common prefixes, one of which is: "WITH" Consider using a lookahead of 2 or more for nested expansion.From what I can tell, these may stem from ambiguities involving Identifier vs keyword-based starts (INDEX, WITH, etc.). I suspect a deeper refactoring of how Identifier and keyword lookahead are handled might be needed.
If there’s a better pattern or common best practice to resolve such nested choice conflicts (especially those involving Identifier vs keyword lookahead), I’d appreciate your advice before going further.
Thanks!