In the context of parsec, you'd probably behave as if you'd seen a closing brace (adjusting the generated AST accordingly) instead of actually inserting one. And likewise with respect to inserting semicolons. The spec isn't written in terms of that because it specifies effective behavior in terms of an unspecified parser design, instead of committing the implementor to a specific parser design. On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 3:53 PM Benjamin Redelings < benjamin.redelings@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
Section 10.3 of the Haskell 2010 report describes the layout rule for Haskell in terms of rules for inserting curly braces and semicolons into the token stream.
I'm not sure of the theory behind implementing Note 5 in section 10.3. This says roughly that we insert a "}" token after token t[n] if the tokens t[1]...t[n+1] have no valid parses, and the sequence of tokens t[1] ... t[n] followed by "}" DO have a valid parse.
I think this allows you to write
f z = let x=2;y=3 in x+y+z
However, except for Note 5, it seems like you could do a simple preprocessing step on the token stream to insert "{", ";", and "}" before parsing. Note 5 seems more complicated. (I feel like I read a note somewhere that said "read this and weep" and then failed to implement Note 5. But now I can't remember where I read this.)
In simple explanations like Write you a haskell (http://dev.stephendiehl.com/fun/008_extended_parser.html) it seems that the approach is simply to ignore Note 5.
Can anyone fill me in on
(a) what concepts are assumed by the report that would make it "obvious" how Note 5 is supposed to be implemented?
(b) a simple (hopefully) implementation strategy for implementing it? I'm looking for a language-independent approach for parsing.
I did see some mention of error-correcting parsers in the Parsec paper, which might allow adding the "}" at a parse error. But I see there is a paper called " An error correcting parser for context free grammars that takes less than cubic time". The "less than cubic time" seems rather worrisome, so I don't know if this is the right approach.
Also, when using parsec, it seems that you might get an idea how many tokens are a valid prefix of the grammer when the token stream fails to parse. Hence, you could try inserting a "}" into the token stream at the point of a parse error. However, a naive approach would then require re-parsing the whole stream from the beginning until each parse error, which seems very expensive.
Thanks for any help!
-BenRI
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list To (un)subscribe, modify options or view archives go to: http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe Only members subscribed via the mailman list are allowed to post.
-- brandon s allbery kf8nh allbery.b@gmail.com