[antlr-interest] Can subrules be set to 'n-to-m'?
scott at javadude.com
Fri Mar 25 19:17:46 PST 2005
No no no no... Silly!
I'm saying that instead of writing
It would just be
As for parens, they should be treated the same way as any other expression
language (other than Lisp ;) -- optional to denote precedence where needed.
I hate typing extra stuff for no good reason. If there were a conflict I'd
agree they should be required, but as Einstein said "make it as simple as
possible, and no simpler".
Everyone deals fine with
x = 3 + 4
Why make them type
x = (3 + 4)
Unless they need the extra precedence indication?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John D. Mitchell [mailto:johnm-antlr at non.net]
> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 12:14 PM
> To: Scott Stanchfield
> Cc: 'antlr-interest Interest'
> Subject: RE: [antlr-interest] Can subrules be set to 'n-to-m'?
> >>>>> "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 e.g. (ID)?
> That would be completely silly. It looks like an indexed
> access operation, it's different than the base case, etc.
> > (...)[n,m]
> Yes, I agree that it use the square brackets (ala math notation):
> with the ,m part optional.
> > Should suffice.
> > BUT,
> > 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 distinctively.
> Take care,
More information about the antlr-interest