[antlr-interest] Re: "protected" lexer rules

Tim Simpson tim at monster-works.co.nz
Mon Nov 8 12:51:17 PST 2004



> > --- In antlr-interest at yahoogroups.com, "John B. Brodie" <jbb at a...> 
> > wrote:
> >> On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 15:47:57, John D. Mitchell wrote:
> >>>> perhaps there is a different "section"; one for regular rules and
> > then
> >>>> one for these shared rules?
> >>>
> >>> Naw, I prefer to have the helper rules next to the rule that they 
> >>> help.
> >>
> >
> > I like "local", "local-rule" or "local-scope" for some reason.
> 
> Hi.  Local makes sense too actually.  It's definitely not overloaded in 
> the grammar name space, but it too has a meaning as in "local 
> variable".  Hmm...it's good actually.  subrule is very specific, but is 
> an overloaded term.  Damn!
> 
> INT : (DIGIT)+ ;
> 
> local
> DIGIT : '0'..'9' ;
> 
> Hmm..not bad.
> 
> Ter

Currently I'm toying around with antlr, trying to learn the 
in's and out's. It is a very useful tool. I was thinking about 
this sub/protected rules, and it kind of reminds me of some 
stuff from functional programming.

So what about

INT : (DIGIT)+ 
where {DIGIT : '0'..'9';};

Of course this would only make the definition of DIGIT local to INT.

Thanks for listening, 
  Tim.

--
Tim Simpson, Ph.D







 
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/
 





More information about the antlr-interest mailing list