The basic structure of stratified rules is like this (at least for binary operations):

## for right-associative ops:
lower_prec_expr : higher_prec_expr lower_prec_op lower_prec_expr
                | higher_prec expr

## for left-associative ops:
## warning: written this way, it is left-recursive.
lower_prec_expr : lower_prec_expr lower_prec_op higher_prec_expr
                | higher_prec expr
[download]

Here's an example for your purposes:

use Parse::RecDescent;
use Data::Dumper;

my $grammar = q{
  startrule: logical_expr

  logical_expr: comparison_expr logical_op logical_expr { [@item[1,2,3
+]] }
              | comparison_expr
  logical_op: /\\|\\||or|&&|and/

  comparison_expr: paren_expr comparison_op comparison_expr { [@item[1
+,2,3]] }
                 | paren_expr
  comparison_op: />=?|<=?|!=|==|le|ge|eq|ne|lt|gt/

  paren_expr: '(' logical_expr ')' { $item[2] }
            | atom

  atom: /[A-Za-z_][A-Za-z0-9_]*/
};


my $parser = new Parse::RecDescent $grammar;

for (<DATA>) {
  print $_;
  print Dumper $parser->startrule($_);
  print "============\n";
}

__DATA__
foo == bar || baz < bar
foo == bar || baz < bar || foo && bar
(foo || bar) || baz
[download]

Postscript: Refer to the Dragon Book or a similar parsing reference for more on stratification. (could have sworn the Dragon Book mentioned this, but it's not in the index)

Update: Limbic~Region noticed that I had swapped left & right associativity in my examples. Now fixed.

The good news: I applied your technique and it seems to work! The new grammar will parse everything the old one did and the new syntax too.

The bad news: it's incredibly slow! The test suite which used to run in a few seconds now takes so long that I have to kill it on the complex grammar test.

Here's the grammar I'm using now:

Read more... (3 kB)

Yeah, look at all of that crazy recursion! I was trying to steer you away from that in my other reply, but I had this freaking meeting to go to, so I guess I wasn't very clear in my explantion because I was in a rush. Apologies for that; I'll be more thorough here.

Like I said in my other reply, a binop is essentially a string of expressions at the same precedence that are executed in sequence. (Earlier, you only had 1 level of precedence, so you could get away with just changing one rule.) The classic recursive/BNF way to do this is with a tail/right-recursive call back to the original rule. Unfortunately, recursion is really slow, especially when something has to back-track. However, tail-recursion can also be implemented as a loop, but only if the grammar engine has the capabilities.

Luckily, PRD does infact have these capabilities via leftop, (s), and (s?). So, if we take a rule like:

logical_expr : comparison_expr logical_op logical_expr 
             | comparison_expr
[download]

We can turn this into the loop form:

logical_expr : comparison_expr mult_logical_expr(s?)
mult_logical_expr: logical_op comparison_expr

# or:

logical_expr : comparison_expr (logical_op comparison_expr)(s?)
[download]

And so, we continue down the precedence ladder, until we get to paren_expr, which should really be called something like "single_expr". paren_expr then needs to recurse back up to the top of the precedence list like you have, as this is unavoidable. Of course, we can capture more precisely with PRD, and so with these modifications, we come up with:

logical_expr : comparison_expr
               (logical_op comparison_expr { [ \@item[1..2] ] })(s?)
               { [  \$item[1], map { \@ \$_ } \@{\$item[2]} ] }

comparison_expr : math_expr
                (comparison_op math_expr { [ \@item[1..2] ] })(s?)
                { [  \$item[1], map { \@ \$_ } \@{\$item[2]} ] }

math_expr : paren_expr
            (math_op paren_expr { [ \@item[1..2] ] })(s?)
            { [  \$item[1], map { \@ \$_ } \@{\$item[2]} ] }
[download]

And, if you test it, you'll find it runs very fast now.

A couple more notes:

1. It really is a lot easier to write (and especially write!) PRD grammars if you use a single-quoted heredoc. You won't have to backslash anything that you don't need to.
2. PRD automatically returns the last item matched in a production, so you can get rid of most of the { \$item[1] } productions.
3. You might want to think about using an auto-action (or even just regular actions) that will differente the result of each rule into a seperate dynamically-generated class. That will make it much easier to walk the resulting tree, especially if you have several levels of paren-nesting. For instance, something like:

   $::RD_AUTOACTION = q { bless [@item[1..$#item]], "$item[0]_node" };
   [download]

   will bless the resulting match array into a class that matches the rule name that was matched! The resulting object returned by the $parser->startrule will be a very nice tree that you can walk very easily with the Visitor pattern.

Thanks for the help! I'll give this a try and see if it does the trick.

-sam

Precedence discussions aside (it didn't seem like you need precedence levels here), your problem is that you're only trying to match two things in a binary_op. Binary ops are more like "chains of one or more expressions of equal precedence", and since you only seem to have one level of precedence here, we can just do a loop:

binary_op     : '(' subexpression (op subexpression {[\@item[1..2]]} )
+(s?) ')'
                { [  \$item[2], map { \@\$_ } \@{\$item[3]} ] }
[download]

If you want to be able to have an alternative that doesn't need parens, just mirror the same rule without parens. Let me know if you still have trouble...

P.S.: When writing PRD grammars, its useful to use a non-interpolating heredoc (e.g. my $grammar = << '__ENDG__') so you don't have to backslash anything. :)

binary_op     : '(' subexpression (op subexpression {[@item[1..2]]})(s
+?) ')'
                { [ $item[2], map { @$_ } @{$item[3]} ] }
[download]

Thanks for the help! I've tried just dropping the '(' and ')' but then I get errors from PRD about the grammar being left-associative.

-sam

Yeah, that's a good point. You'll need to get rid of the left-recursion. To do that, you'd need to get rid of binary_op and subexpression in your subexpression rule. Next, you'll need to factor out all of the paren stuff into a single rule, and then use that rule within the binary_op rule instead of subexpression. Here's an example:

paren:    '(' binary_op ')' { \$item [2] } # parens belong here, and o
+nly here!
         | subexpression
        
subexpression: function_call
              | var
              | literal
              | <error>

binary_op     : paren (op paren { [ \@item[1..2] ] })(s?)       # any 
+parenned expression will sink down here
                { [  \$item[1], map { \@\$_ } \@{\$item[2]} ] }
[download]

I wrote an article on eliminating left recursion in P::RD a while back: Eliminating Left Recursion in Parse::RecDescent

BTW, got a copy of your book recently. Nice one. ++ to you for sure. :-)

---
demerphq