Closed vsajip closed 6 months ago
Gee, I still don't really have a clue (yet) about these newer tree-building annotations, like =?
and so on. I was rather surprise to see this in the core CongoCC.ccc
grammar. Is it possible that John was experimenting with this locally and inadvertently committed this?
No, I think I meant it (I changed some of the CongoCC.ccc productions that were doing equivalent things to the more terse notation). You are correct, exactly as described. I'll look at this.
I could swear I did an update-bootstrap many times after making this change. But apparently not.
Oh, I see. My sanity check I recently added now detects this. Before that, it was just ignored (and apparently cause no detected problem).
This was too clever by half. It looks like it worked before, but the static sanity check failed (as designed), not realizing that the production node being referenced was not the parent production of the assignment, but rather an augument to it. I'll put it back the way it was before. I think you (Jon) were correct, I was doing this as an experiment and forgot and left it in. See line 1204.
As per the title. Console session illustrates:
There's the offending line: https://github.com/congo-cc/congo-parser-generator/blob/b94681c3ba0cbdc734e3b9c3cb5aadeceaeb08f3/src/grammars/CongoCC.ccc#L1221 Perhaps @adMartem might like to look into this?