[antlr-interest] clarification on tree proposal
Terence Parr
parrt at cs.usfca.edu
Tue Feb 8 09:59:36 PST 2005
Howdy,
Just in case I've not been clear on the tree proposal stuff, that blog
entry is what I am proposing to implement, but the ideas are *not*
exclusively mine. I've been working with Loring Craymer, Monty
Zukowski, Ric Klaren, and John Mitchell very closely over the years and
I have been greatly influenced by their ideas. Further, ANTLR users
(and particularly the ANTLR2004 workshop attendees) continuously send
me good ideas. I use whatever I think is useful and can fit in the
"concept" I'm shooting for. I know that Matthew Ford sent me a big
list of ideas for the tree stuff, which I've read and, hence, been
influenced by. Another case in point: John Mitchell just proposed
label+=element to better indicate you intend to work with all values
instead of label=element, which means "last element matched." Love
that. I will add to the proposal when I get a few spare cycles.
Regarding Loring's 2.8experimental, I hope to use as many ideas as
possible in my implementation for v3.0. Certainly, he has some great
ideas, which I've already included in my proposal. As I learn more, I
may grab even more! :) We should get some good experimental data on
the ideas as people start to play with it. I will watch closely.
Anyway, just wanted to be clear about things. Keep those ideas coming
folks! ANTLR has become popular because I try to provide what you ask
for! ;)
Thanks,
Ter
PS the same collaborative effort went into the attribute mechanism.
--
CS Professor & Grad Director, University of San Francisco
Creator, ANTLR Parser Generator, http://www.antlr.org
Cofounder, http://www.jguru.com
More information about the antlr-interest
mailing list