Interesting:
function-access1 = record-function1.field1 => using
function-access|record-function
record-function1 = function-access2 => using
record-function production
function-access2 = record-function2.field2 => using
function-access|record-function
record-function2 = x( a ) => using
function-access|entire-function
function-access2 = x( a ).field2 => reducing
function-access2
record-function1 = x( a ).field2 => reducing
record-function1
function-access1 = x( a ).field2.field1 => reducing
function-access1
x( a ).field2 compiles and executes
x( a ).field2.field1 of course does not compile unless field1 is a
field of field2.
I can’t say I follow you exactly...
But is it a syntacticly correct result of these productions?
If so is it an ambiguity in the grammar? Do the productions have
precedence rules?
e.g. variable-access has higher precedence than function-access
I wrote a recursive descent parser for Extended Pascal in the D language using the Pegged library, which takes the rules of the standard almost literally. I remember changing the order of options in some rules, but I am unsure whether that was for efficiency or for giving precedence to common constructs. I do remember seeing ambiguities in variable access and function access, which I imagine can be resolved by keeping a symbol table of earlier definitions.
My parser is an interesting project but turned out to be rather inefficient at the moment. If there is an interest I will consider to put it online.
Bastiaan.