Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 923577
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 15, 20262026-05-15T19:12:54+00:00 2026-05-15T19:12:54+00:00

grammar AdifyMapReducePredicate; PREDICATE : PREDICATE_BRANCH | EXPRESSION ; PREDICATE_BRANCH : ‘(‘ PREDICATE ((‘&&’ PREDICATE)+

  • 0
grammar AdifyMapReducePredicate;

PREDICATE 
    :   PREDICATE_BRANCH
    |   EXPRESSION
    ;

PREDICATE_BRANCH
    :   '(' PREDICATE (('&&' PREDICATE)+ | ('||' PREDICATE)+) ')'
    ;

EXPRESSION 
    :   ('a'..'z'|'A'..'Z'|'_') ('a'..'z'|'A'..'Z'|'0'..'9'|'_')*
    ;

Trying to interpret this in ANTLRWorks 1.4 and getting the following error:

[12:18:21] error(211): <notsaved>:1:8: [fatal] rule Tokens has non-LL(*) decision due to recursive rule invocations reachable from alts 1,2.  Resolve by left-factoring or using syntactic predicates or using backtrack=true option.
[12:18:21] Interpreting...

When I interepret, I’m trying to interpret a PREDICATE and my test case is (A||B)

What am I missing?

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-15T19:12:54+00:00Added an answer on May 15, 2026 at 7:12 pm

    By ANTLR’s conventions, parser rule names start with a lower case letter, while lexer rules start with capital letters. So the grammar, as you wrote it, has three lexer rules, defining tokens. This may not be what you want.

    The reason for the error message apparently is the ambiguity between these tokens: your input pattern matches the definitions of both PREDICATE and PREDICATE_BRANCH.

    Just use names starting in lower case letters instead of PREDICATE and PREDICATE_BRANCH. You may also have to add an extra rule for the target symbol, that is not directly involved in the recursion.

    By the way, this grammar is recursive, but not left-recursive, and when using parser rules, it definitely is LL(1).

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

With the following Grammar, I get a syntax error with this sort of input:
I have the following grammar on which I am trying to learn how to
I have the following grammar in ANTLRWorks 1.4. I'm playing around with ideas for
I have the following grammar: grammar bxk; options { language=CSharp3; } // start rule
The ANSI C grammar from -link- give me the following rules for array declarations:
I have this simple grammar for a C# like syntax. I can't figure out
I have this grammar in EBNF notation: expr -> expr (opt1 | opt2 |
I'm using this grammar to calculate math expressions: // Konfiguration (JavaCC-Manual konsultieren) options {
I have an EBNF grammar that has a few rules with this pattern: sequence
I have written this grammar: expr : multExpr ( ('+' | '-') multExpr )*;

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.