[antlr-interest] Can subrules be set to 'n-to-m'?
Sebastian Kaliszewski
sk at z.pl
Tue Mar 29 08:30:45 PST 2005
+1 for optional parens...
On Saturday 26 March 2005 20:55, Scott Stanchfield wrote:
[snip]
> What is the problem here??? Why do you insist on making me waste
> keystrokes and make the grammar LESS clear?
>
> Expressions have been written this way for 30 or more years in the
> computer field, and well longer than that in mathematics.
[snip]
> Based on the experience I've had introducing people to ANTLR, yes. They
> ALL ask about why the parens are needed.
>
> Think about how many people use regular expressions.
>
> a+b*
>
> Rather than
>
> (a)+(b)*
>
>
> Why insist on redefining common usage of + and *???
>
I'm with Scott here... Too much parens obfuscate the .g code for me.
Hey, it's ANTLR, not Lisp, after all.
rgds
--
Sebastian Kaliszewski
More information about the antlr-interest
mailing list