Ideally, you'd want:

   expr     : bin_op_2 { $item[1] }

   bin_op_2 : bin_op_2 /[+-]/ bin_op_1  { [ @item[2, 1, 3] ] }
            | bin_op_1                  { $item[1] }

   bin_op_1 : bin_op_1 /[*\\\/%]/ term  { [ @item[2, 1, 3] ] }
            | term                      { $item[1] }
[download]

but the module doesn't allow left-recursive grammars. Here's how left-recursion is removed:

   bin_op_2  : bin_op_1 bin_op_2_(s?)
               { treeify($item[1], map { @$_ } @{$item[2]}); }

   bin_op_1  : term bin_op_1_(s?)
               { treeify($item[1], map { @$_ } @{$item[2]}); }

   bin_op_2_ : /[+-]/     bin_op_1 { [ $item[1], $item[2] ] }
   bin_op_1_ : /[*\\\/%]/ term     { [ $item[1], $item[2] ] }
[download]

Since it returns a list, we need to spend extra effort making it into a tree again. treeify is defined as:

      sub treeify {
         my $t = shift;
         $t = [ shift, $t, shift ]
            while @_;
         return $t;
      }
[download]

Parse::RecDescent provides a shortcut in the form of <leftop>:

   # Lowest precedence.
   bin_op_2 : <leftop: bin_op_1 SUM bin_op_1 >
              { treeify(@{$item[1]}); }

   bin_op_1 : <leftop: term PROD term >
              { treeify(@{$item[1]}); }
   # Highest precedence.

   SUM      : '+' | '-'
   PROD     : '*' | '/' | '\\' | '%'
[download]

Here's the final product (with a couple of operators added for demonstration purposes):

You could use the following for assignment, but I think it's slower:

      sub treeify_r {
         my $t = pop;
         $t = [ pop, pop, $t ]
            while @_;
         return $t;
      }

   assign   : <rightop: IDENT ASSIGN assign >
              { treeify_r(@{$item[1]}); }

   ASSIGN   : '='
[download]

Update: Changed
expr : bin_op_5 { $item[1] }
to
expr : assign { $item[1] }

Changed
'\'
to
'\\'

This seems to work... I am guessing it is basically the shortcut way to do what blokhead proposed... I was able to get it to return a little less depth in the tree, though it isn't quite perfect.

Here is my grammar, for posterity's sake.

my $grammar = <<'GRAMMAR'

  {
      use strict;
      use warnings;

      sub treeify {
         my $t = shift;
#     my($l,$r) = (shift,shift);
     while(@_) {
         my($l,$r) = (shift,shift);
         
         $t = [ 'op',$l, (ref $t eq 'ARRAY' && !$#$t ? @$t : $t), (ref
+ $r eq 'ARRAY' && !$#$r ? @$r : $r) ]
     }
         return $t;
      }
   }

  startrule: bin_op

  bin_op: comp_op 
 # Lowest precendance.
  comp_op: <leftop: add_op COMP add_op>
              { treeify(@{$item[1]}); }

   add_op: <leftop: prod_op SUM prod_op >
              { treeify(@{$item[1]}); }

   prod_op : <leftop: mod_op PROD mod_op >
              { treeify(@{$item[1]}); }
   # Highest precendance.

   mod_op : <leftop: term MOD term >
              { treeify(@{$item[1]}); }

   SUM      : '+' | '-'
   PROD     : '*' | '/'
   MOD      : '%'
   COMP     : />=?|<=?|!=|==?|le|ge|eq|ne|lt|gt/


  term: function 
            | '(' bin_op ')' { $item[2] }
            | number
            | string

  if: /if/i '(' list_bin_op list_bin_op bin_op ')' { ['func',@item[1,3
+..5]] }
  concat: /concat/i '(' list_bin_op(s) bin_op ')' { ['func',$item[1],@
+{$item[3]},$item[4]] }
  left: /left/i '(' list_bin_op bin_op ')' { ['func',@item[1,3,4]] }
  right: /right/i '(' list_bin_op bin_op ')' { ['func',@item[1,3,4]] }
  ifnull: /ifnull/i '(' list_bin_op bin_op ')' { ['func',@item[1,3,4]]
+ }

  function: if | concat | left | right | ifnull

  number: /[+-]?\d+/ { $item[1] }
  string: { $_ = extract_quotelike($text); chop; substr($_,0,1,''); $_
+; } { [@item] }

#$thisparser->startrule($item[2],1,$type)

  list_bin_op: bin_op ',' { $item[1] }

GRAMMAR
;
[download]

This is actually parsing MySQL-like statements, so there is a bit in there for some function definitions, seems to work, though. Thanks all!

                - Ant
                - Some of my best work - (1 2 3)

You're giving % higher precedence than *. Are you sure that's correct? According to your grammar, 4*2%3 is equivalent to 4*(2%3) (8) rather than (4*2)%3 (0).

The words op and func are probably redundant. Do you really need to know that something is a op rather than specifically an addition, substratction, multiplication, etc.?

Does extract_quotelike remove the quotes? If so, you have a problem if someone create a string called op or func. That's why I had term in the tree. This is the only level you removed, and it hurts you.

Update: Oops, I'm mistaken on that last one. If it's a ref, it's an op or func. It's it's not, it's a number or string. It's not very orthogonal to flattern terms, but it works for this grammar.

P::RD may have other bells & whistles to help with precedence, but this is the only way I can ever remember to do precedence correctly, and it works with any kind of parser (although you may have to factor out left-recursion in right-associative operators).

Update: BTW, you can string together all operations of the same precedence level, which is probably more efficient. I.e, parse (a+b)*c*d*e*(f+g) into a shallow parse tree whose root has 5 children, instead of having a deeper parse tree whose nodes always have 2 children. However, for simplicity/uniformity it's often nice to always know that each node of the parse tree is a simple binary operation.

So... away I went... and that seems to work, BUT!

where when I parsed 4+1*2 before I got

$VAR1 = [
          '4',
          '+',
          [
            '1',
            '*',
            '2'
          ]
        ];
[download]

Now I get

$VAR1 = [
          [
            [
              [
                '4'
              ]
            ],
            '+',
            [
              [
                '1'
              ],
              '*',
              [
                '2'
              ]
            ]
          ]
        ];
[download]

Ick... any good way to clean that up? It gets really nasty with more complex statements.
Here is the new grammar.

  startrule: comparison_expr

  comparison_expr: additive_expr
               (comparison_op additive_expr { [ @item[1..2] ] })(s?)
               { [  $item[1], map { @ $_ } @{$item[2]} ] }
  comparison_op: />=?|<=?|!=|==?|le|ge|eq|ne|lt|gt/

  additive_expr: multiplicative_expr
               (additive_op multiplicative_expr { [ @item[1..2] ] })(s
+?)
               { [  $item[1], map { @ $_ } @{$item[2]} ] }
  additive_op: /[+-]/

  multiplicative_expr: modulus_expr
               (multiplicative_op modulus_expr { [ @item[1..2] ] })(s?
+)
               { [  $item[1], map { @ $_ } @{$item[2]} ] }
  multiplicative_op: /[*\/]/

  modulus_expr: paren_expr
               ('%' paren_expr { [ @item[1..2] ] })(s?)
               { [  $item[1], map { @ $_ } @{$item[2]} ] }


  paren_expr: '(' comparison_expr ')' { $item[2] }
            | number

  number: /[+-]?\d+/ { $item[1] }
[download]

                - Ant
                - Some of my best work - (1 2 3)

That's another reason why it's simpler to have just binary operations at each level (instead of a longer sequence of same-precedence operations). ;)

Consider the generic outline:

lower_prec_expr : higher_prec_expr lower_prec_op lower_prec_expr
                | higher_prec expr
[download]

The problem is that you want your parse to give different semantic values for the different branches. If you take the 2nd branch, it's just a "pass-through" of the semantic value and you don't want to construct a new arrayref around it. If you take the first branch where there is actually an operation, you need to construct an arrayref with the appropriate things.

You've combined both of these branches into one production in the grammar like this:

lower_prec_expr : higher_prec_expr (lower_prec_op lower_prec_expr)(s?)
                      { [ "put stuff in arrayref" ] }
[download]

So now you're putting things inside an arrayref even in the "pass-through" case, where there is no operator at this point in the parse.

To fix this, put a conditional in your semantic rule to distinguish these cases, i.e:

lower_prec_expr : higher_prec_expr (lower_prec_op lower_prec_expr)(s?)
                      { @{$item[2]} ? [ ... ] : $item[1] }
[download]

That's kinda nasty. Alternatively, have two different productions explicitly in the grammar:

lower_prec_expr : higher_prec_expr (lower_prec_op lower_prec_expr)(s)
                      { [ ... ] }
                | higher_prec_expr
[download]

I.e, if there *are* operators here (no question mark on the (s) quantifier), we build an arrayref for the semantic value with the first branch. Otherwise, the second branch has no semantic rule, so it's just a "pass-through" of the semantic value and does not add layers of arrayref.

The latter is probably the best choice. Just change the (s?)'s to (s)'s and add the other alternation to the grammar.

blokhead

Here's my guess.

You have this:

expression:
operand operator expression  { [@item[1..3]] } |
[download]