Skip to content

Conversation

max-sixty
Copy link
Member

Not sure why this doesn't work. We don't necessarily need to merge this but pushing in case anyone knows offhand...

Not sure why this doesn't work. We don't necessarily need to merge this but pushing in case anyone knows offhand...
@max-sixty max-sixty changed the title Add comment re expr_call duplication docs: Add comment re expr_call duplication Jun 20, 2024

// This simply inlines `expr_call`. But if we call `expr_call` here, we get a
// stack overflow — possibly because this is a recursive parser?
// let nested_expr = pipeline(expr_call().boxed()).boxed();
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's not exactly an inline:

  • the expr in this function is the reference to the "recursive" node,
  • the expr in expr_call() is the whole expr parser, reconstructed.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

To be fair the is the most confusing part of the parser (and prql cfg).

It stems from the fact that some locations is PRQL allow "expression that can have function calls at top-level" and other locations allow only "expression that don't have function calls at top-level".

For example:

  • let a = ____ is the first case,
  • join ____ (owner==id) is the second case. Here, the ___ cannot be expr with function calls at the top-level (for example from db.mytable) because that would also consume the last argument to join. It would parse as (join (from db.mytable (owner==id)) instead of (join (from db.mytable) (owner==id).

This stems from the fact that we don't require parenthesis for func calls or even commas.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants