W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > October to December 2004

RE: SPARQL grammar 2004-10-12 lex/yacc conflicts feedback (was Re: SPARQL 2004-10-12 syntax and grammar issues)

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 14:26:04 -0000
Message-ID: <8D5B24B83C6A2E4B9E7EE5FA82627DC94D313D@sdcexcea01.emea.cpqcorp.net>
To: "Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: "RDF Data Access Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

Ah! A somewhat different timescale.  Oct 12th this year.

The first one is resolved by having {braces} as the grouping symbols.
It is in rq23/ as noted at:

Revision 1.126  2004/11/04 15:20:29  aseaborne
...
+ triple pattern grouping is now {braces} (except for [] optionals)
...

Can't do much about the second - it's because of unary and binary '+'
and '-'.

-------------------

The important thing for the SPARQL grammar is to communicate the
language - it is not there to be exactly as an implementation would want
for yacc.  The implementer is going tohave to do some work to turn the
grammar in the document into yacc/javacc/antlr/hand coded parser/....


	Andy

-------- Original Message --------
> From: Dave Beckett <mailto:dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
> Date: 8 November 2004 14:13
> 
> On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 14:08:03 -0000, "Seaborne, Andy"
> <andy.seaborne@hp.com> wrote: 
> 
> > > ISSUE: grammar lex/yacc shift/reduce conflicts
> > > I raised this in:
> > > 
> >
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004Jul/0016.html
> > > based on an IRC chat.  No reply so far.  The first shift/reduce
> > > conflict I think is serious.
> > 
> > This link points doesn't point to a message by Dave Beckett.  Nor is
> > it about lex/yacc shift/reduce conflicts.
> 
> There it is
>  
>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004OctDec/0170.html
> 
> 
> Dave
Received on Monday, 8 November 2004 14:27:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:21 GMT