Problem when there are consecutive function calls on the right side of the assignment statement

[Dongyang0810]

local a = GetClass(data).OtherFunc(self, ohterData) GetClass is a function that returns an object with a member function OtherFunc. GetClass(data).OtherFunc(self, otherData) should be parsed as a tree structure where the root node is a function call, and the child node is also a function call.

The parsing result of GetClass(data).OtherFunc(self, ohterData) when parsing in a single line is inconsistent with the parsing result when placed on the right side of the assignment statement.

local a = GetClass(data).OtherFunc(self, ohterData)
GetClass(data).OtherFunc(self, ohterData)

How can I resolve this issue?

[KvanTTT]

Please clarify the grammar you are talking about.

[KvanTTT]

Got it, I've seen Lua on the image.

[bkiers]

Instead of:

prefixexp
    : NAME ('[' exp ']' | '.' NAME)*
    | functioncall ('[' exp ']' | '.' NAME)*
    | '(' exp ')' ('[' exp ']' | '.' NAME)*
    ;

try this:

prefixexp
    : functioncall ('[' exp ']' | '.' NAME)*
    | NAME ('[' exp ']' | '.' NAME)*
    | '(' exp ')' ('[' exp ']' | '.' NAME)*
    ;

[bkiers]

This seems to be an exact duplicate of https://github.com/antlr/grammars-v4/issues/3885

[Dongyang0810]

This seems to be an exact duplicate of https://github.com/antlr/grammars-v4/issues/3885

yes,I saw the question after I asked it.

[Dongyang0810]

Instead of:

prefixexp
    : NAME ('[' exp ']' | '.' NAME)*
    | functioncall ('[' exp ']' | '.' NAME)*
    | '(' exp ')' ('[' exp ']' | '.' NAME)*
    ;

try this:

prefixexp
    : functioncall ('[' exp ']' | '.' NAME)*
    | NAME ('[' exp ']' | '.' NAME)*
    | '(' exp ')' ('[' exp ']' | '.' NAME)*
    ;

Yes, I have reordered the syntax rules like this, but I saw kaby76's comment: https://github.com/antlr/grammars-v4/issues/3885#issuecomment-1852090676, so this issue might require a different solution.

[kaby76]

Yes, I have reordered the syntax rules like this, but I saw kaby76's comment: #3885 (comment), so this issue might require a different solution.

Of course, I may be wrong! Reordering may fix your problem, but I think the problem is that it doesn't solve the reported ambiguity.

[Dongyang0810]

Yes, I have reordered the syntax rules like this, but I saw kaby76's comment: #3885 (comment), so this issue might require a different solution.

Of course, I may be wrong! Reordering may fix your problem, but I think the problem is that it doesn't solve the reported ambiguity.

Is there a plan to fix this issue?

[bkiers]

... Is there a plan to fix this issue?

Feel free to submit a PR including some tests to validate it 😄