[antlr-interest] still more => wars ;)

[Martin Probst]

> Hmm...the two kinds of sem preds are pretty similar this way.  I do  
> like the => implies predicate though.  I wonder what we could do to  
> indicate gated.  Loring's original suggestion was

Something missing here?

> which is verbose but these are not used much and it's clear what we  
> mean w/o new syntax.  We could then do
> 
> (...) => 	syntactic predicate
> {...}?		_hoisting_ disambiguating semantic predicate
> ( {...}? ) =>  gated semantic predicate

Well, 7 special characters for the semantic predicate is certainly
verbose, but in my opinion not more accessible. Plus it probably doesn't
mean much to new users. Plus there hoisting semantic predicates get the
syntax which is now used for semantic predicates, which are closer to
gated ones, or not? Is there purpose in there?

Martin