[antlr-interest] Can subrules be set to 'n-to-m'?

[Scott Stanchfield]

Dude -- I think you're missing the point about regexps.

*Anything* can be abused. One could write an ANTLR parser in a few huge
rules with a bunch of subrules that are unreadable...

The point of the regexp mention is that
__many_people_are_used_to_the_syntax__. We don't need to shield people from
things they already know how to use and are more efficent using without
extra syntax.

-- Scott

> > While we're on the subject of lexers, one of John D. 
> Mitchell's emails 
> > on this subject appears to denigrate the regex as something that's 
> > only useful for simple operations or hacks.
> 
> Hmm... I can see how it could be read that way.  To be clear, 
> at heart, regexps are just another tool.  One of the big 
> problems is that because of their easy to get started with 
> nature, people have gone well and truly insane in their abuse 
> of both the usage of regexps as well as gerrymandering them 
> to attempt to become full blown grammars.  That's become a 
> vicious cycle.