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

[Lubos Vnuk]

> Yuck.  That has a similar problem to "subrule"
> in that "subtoken" already has meaning when
> talking about the parts of a complicated rule 
I have never heard of referring to a part of a complicated lexer rule 
as a subtoken. I'd call it a segment, a part, a fragment... Isn't a 
subtoken supposed to be a token as well as a subset is a set or a 
subprocedure is still a procedure? If yes, then the 'A' in the 
following example cannot be called "subtoken":

rule: ABC subrule;
ABC: 'A' BC;
protected
BC: 'B' 'C';

I know that based on this reasoning you may object that BC shouldn't 
be called "subtoken" either as a subtoken cannot actually exist as it 
contradicts the definition of a token...but isn't this the exact and 
explicit meaning of what we have been trying to say by "protected" so 
far?


Regards,
Lubos.
P.S.: I vote for any of these: subtoken, imaginary token, virtual 
token, helper token, abstract token, auxiliary token, sublexeme






 
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/