[antlr-interest] Resolving non-determinism: a clarification needed!

[Bharath S]

Hi Monty,

Its actually in the parser. I used upper case for the rules just to give an
example. Both the rules that I have mentioned are parser rules and not lexer
rules. Does that give me any edge?

Thanks for your prompt reply!

Bharath
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Monty Zukowski [mailto:monty at codetransform.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 4:31 PM
To: antlr-interest at yahoogroups.com
Cc: Monty Zukowski
Subject: Re: [antlr-interest] Resolving non-determinism: a clarification
needed!

On Apr 22, 2004, at 2:22 PM, Bharath S wrote:

> Eg. new_Rule: (integer | blah | blah | NOT(...|Integer) | blah | blah);
>
> This is just a simple example and I have several such non 
> determinisms. Is
> this the right way to solve this non-determinism or am I missing 
> something
> huge? Is this duplication of code an acceptable approach? Please feel 
> free
> to give your comments.
>
> Thanks!
>
If you have to handle it in the lexer then that's really the only way 
to do it.  Why not handle it in the parser?

Monty

Monty Zukowski

ANTLR & Java Consultant -- http://www.codetransform.com
ANSI C/GCC transformation toolkit -- 
http://www.codetransform.com/gcc.html
Embrace the Decay -- http://www.codetransform.com/EmbraceDecay.html




 
Yahoo! Groups Links



 






 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/antlr-interest/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     antlr-interest-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

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