[antlr-interest] how useful would a generic grammar "action"
language be?
Oliver Zeigermann
oliver at zeigermann.de
Tue Oct 28 12:17:22 PST 2003
Terence Parr wrote:
> Yeah, I'm semi-skeptical but it's a nice dream. Perhaps it will only
> be good for sem preds?
For sure, because sem preds are part of the analysis part of the
grammar. Maybe you could think of completly removing all other synthesis
actions (except for sem preds and setting of conditions for them of
course specified in your pseudo-language) from the grammar and find
another way of specifying semantic actions outside of it. I know sableCC
elaborated some concepts how to do this. Unfortunately, I have no deeper
insight into this...
Oliver
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
More information about the antlr-interest
mailing list