[antlr-interest] Re: Translators Should Use Tree Grammars

[micheal_jor]

--- In antlr-interest at yahoogroups.com, Terence Parr <parrt at c...> wrote:
> Ok, whew!  8 furiously written pages on visitors, tree node classes, 
> tree grammars, and action execution:
> 
> http://www.antlr.org/article/1100569809276/use.tree.grammars.tml
> 
> Hopefully, this is clearly written.  Regardless, it summarizes my 
> position rather thoroughly. ;)  Please send me feedback if you think 
> the article can be improved etc...

Comments:
C1. Remote attribution is cool but, does it remain useful if one
already has a symbol table?

C2. Visitors tend to be used with tree built from strongly-typed nodes
(heterogenous nodes). Ignoring the [potential] typing issue related to
the representation of lists of [children] nodes,  the strong typing
enforces structural "correctness" - so explicit tree structure
validation isn't required. You get it for free.


Errata:

E1. Section "Grammars as formal structure specifications" - "not"
missing in first sentence:
"No one will argue that building a text parser by hand should be done
manually in most circumstances."

 - should be -

   "No one will argue that building a text parser by hand should not
be done manually in most circumstances."

Nice. Very clearly argued points in the article.

Cheers!

Micheal
ANTLR/C#





 
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/