[antlr-interest] how useful would a generic grammar "action" language be?

[Matt Benson]

Basically what I was saying was where
language-agnostic actions are insufficient to perform
a task, as much as possible of the state could be
provided in a language-agnostic way, the purpose being
to minimize the work needed to implement the action
for a given language.

Is that any clearer?

-Matt


--- Terence Parr <parrt at cs.usfca.edu> wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday, October 28, 2003, at 12:46 PM, Matt
> Benson wrote:
> 
> > Okay, also, Ter, you had mentioned using an ANTLR
> 3
> > intermediate form for all kinds of goodies... I am
> > trying to have an idea but I'm too dumb for it. 
> :)
> >
> > We know we have to retain a means of generating
> > actions even when they are too complex to be
> specified
> > in the "action language."  Does it make sense to
> have
> > the concept of a target language-specific
> > implementation of some kind of ANTLR event
> listener
> > interface, where the specification is open enough
> not
> > to be restricted to OO target languages?  I'm not
> sure
> > what the events would consist of; possibly a
> string
> > representation of the ANTLR intermediate form...
> or to
> > bring the whole thing full circle, a
> > target-language-specific representation of the
> > intermediate form, generated according to the same
> > principles as we are discussing overall?
> >
> > Does any of that make sense?
> 
> Not sure exactly what you're trying to get at, but
> all things will 
> become clear as I try to implement something.  We
> could have two kinds 
> of actions: generic antlr actions and
> language-specific actions.  Not 
> sure that is a *good* thing, but it is possible.
> 
> Ter
> 
> >
> > -Matt
> >
> >
> > --- Oliver Zeigermann <oliver at zeigermann.de>
> wrote:
> >> 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/
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
> > http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> --
> Professor Comp. Sci., University of San Francisco
> Creator, ANTLR Parser Generator,
> http://www.antlr.org
> Co-founder, http://www.jguru.com
> Co-founder, http://www.knowspam.net enjoy email
> again!
> Co-founder, http://www.peerscope.com pure link
> sharing
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/