[antlr-interest] Can subrules be set to 'n-to-m'?
John D. Mitchell
johnm-antlr at non.net
Fri Mar 25 09:13:32 PST 2005
>>>>> "Scott" == Scott Stanchfield <scott at javadude.com> writes:
> I think the "+" is redundant here...
So are you also suggesting that (ID)+ should only be written as
That would be completely silly. It looks like an indexed access operation,
it's different than the base case, etc.
Yes, I agree that it use the square brackets (ala math notation):
with the ,m part optional.
> Should suffice.
> While I'm at it, can (...) be optional for single-ref repetition? For
> example, I'd love to be able to use:
I don't care for that. Why? Because it means that people have to scan and
understand two different forms for the same fundamental meaning. I.e.,
it's a Good Thing(tm) that the parentheses make the loops stand out
More information about the antlr-interest