Hello Paul,
On 16 Feb 2017, at 02:49, Paul Isaacs <paul@redpineinstruments.org> wrote:
Is the sentence a(x).field1.field2 a syntactically valid outcome of the function-access production?
I think so, but the water is getting deeper.
1) function-access = component- function access 2) component-function-access = record-function-access
substituting 2) in 1) 3) function-access = record-function-access
4) record-function-access = record-function '.' field-specifier substituting 4) in 3)
5) function-access = record-function '.' field-specifier
6) record-function = function-access substituting 6) in 5)
7) function-access = function-access '.' field-specifier
which makes function-access left recursive.
Is 7) lexically valid but semantically invalid because function-access '.' field-specifier can not be a function-access?
I see. Interesting question. I have not concerned myself with semantic analysis. My objective was to translate working EP code into D code, and recon that semantics (and ambiguity even) can be disregarded in that application. Bastiaan.