[antlr-interest] Yet another idea for a
completlygenericTreeParser
Loring Craymer
Loring.G.Craymer at jpl.nasa.gov
Mon May 16 23:36:41 PDT 2005
At 10:14 PM 5/16/2005, Scott Stanchfield wrote:
>Loring, I'm not getting into this argument with you again. Like I said, we
>obviously don't agree and it's a waste of everyone's time.
>
>People have heard both of our arguments (and know I'm right ;) ).
>
>If this doesn't get into ANTLR I'll have to do it myself, because there's no
>way I'm going through the overhead of tons of extra nodes or object pooling
>to avoid the extra nodes if I can just have a single model object.
Scott--
As I have pointed out several times, "tons of extra nodes" is not what the
analysis shows. If you do not have sufficient need for processing
non-ANTLR trees to experiment with a mechanism which can be effectively
used now, why do you expect to have sufficient need later to justify the
effort of maintaining a modified version of ANTLR 3?
Basically, you have gotten into the "designer fools gold" trap. (I've been
there.) Solving the core problem--using ANTLR tree grammars on non-ANTLR
trees--has become secondary to the "one true solution". Frankly, I would
be quite happy to see an example of an ANTLR tree grammar being used to
process non-ANTLR trees productively and I suspect that others would,
too. If you have a good reason for doing this, why not test to see if the
idea really makes sense?
--Loring
>End of line.
>
>-- Scott
More information about the antlr-interest
mailing list