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

  • Home
  • SEARCH
  • 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 7727375
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: June 1, 20262026-06-01T05:26:36+00:00 2026-06-01T05:26:36+00:00

I have this grammar in EBNF notation: expr -> expr (opt1 | opt2 |

  • 0

I have this grammar in EBNF notation:

expr -> expr (opt1 | opt2 | opt3) expr

And i want to convert it to BNF to use it in Bison but i get shift/reduce errors in this:

expr : expr opt1 expr | expr opt2 expr | expr opt3 expr

I guess i misunderstood something along the way. Any help?

Thanks

  • 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
    2026-06-01T05:26:38+00:00Added an answer on June 1, 2026 at 5:26 am

    How about

    expr: expr optexpr expr
    optexpr: opt1 | opt2 | opt3
    

    The shift/reduce erros are due to the overlapping expr prefixes. By introducing another definition, the parsing of expr becomes unambiguous.

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

Sidebar

Related Questions

I have the following parser grammar (this is a small sample): expr: ident assignop
I have an EBNF grammar that has a few rules with this pattern: sequence
So I have this grammar: expr(op(T,B,E)) => [term(T), binop(B), expr(E)]. expr(T) => [term(T)]. term(N)
I have written this grammar: expr : multExpr ( ('+' | '-') multExpr )*;
Say I have a grammar like this: expr : expr '+' expr { $$
I have this grammar of a C# like language, and I want to make
I have this simple grammar for a C# like syntax. I can't figure out
I have written grammar for a language (sample code below) //this is a procedure
I have this code in jQuery, that I want to reimplement with the prototype
Say I have a Boost Spirit grammar like this, where a parent rule passes

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.