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

[Oliver Zeigermann]

I understand most of your stuff and especially the one about Magic.
What I do not quite understand that - as it seems - for the parser you
accept grammars are a concise language to describe the language to
parse and seem to prefer it over pure Java. Why not for certain tree
transformations? I understand in tree transformations the emphasis is
not on revealing structure (analysis), but rahter on what to do with
certain patterns (synthesis).Do you thing this the important
difference?

Oliver

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 23:10:56 -0000, atripp54321 <atripp at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> Terence,
> 
> Here's my 8-page-or-so furiously written diatribe against
> treewalkers:
> http://jazillian.com/antlr/trees.html
> 
> I don't address the Visitor pattern, and I haven't even finished
> reading your page and the posted responses. I just thought I'd
> get my early, uninformed thoughts down on paper first.
> Wouldn't want to let well-argued points that you gurus
> make make get in my way of opinions :)
> 
> Andy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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/