[antlr-interest] java.g: setting CommonAST.text vs. adding a child

[Martin d Anjou]

Hello,

I see that in the java.g grammar classDefinition production, the class 
name (an IDENT) is built as a child of the classDefinition tree.

Why isn't the text of the classDefinition AST node set to the class name 
IDENT instead? What is the advantage of adding a child with the class 
name instead of setting the text property to the value of IDENT?

Here is the snippet I am talking about with IDENT as the second child:

classDefinition![AST modifiers]
  : "class" IDENT
    // it _might_ have a superclass...
    sc:superClassClause
    // it might implement some interfaces...
    ic:implementsClause
    // now parse the body of the class
    cb:classBlock
    {#classDefinition = #(#[CLASS_DEF,"CLASS_DEF"],modifiers,IDENT,sc,ic,cb);}
  ;

Thanks!
Martin