[antlr-interest] 3.0 final will require t.g has t in it

[Martin Probst]

Can't you just create any implicitly defined Lexers as private static  
member classes of the parser, provide a MyParser(String input)/ 
MyParser(Reader input), and be done? If you're already abstracting  
away the Parser/Lexer difference in the .g file, why have it return  
in Java land? Sounds quite confusing to me ...

Martin

Am 10.07.2006 um 12:07 schrieb Thomas Brandon:

> The handling of both of these is a little illogical\annoying.
> With the naming, if I set my grammar to MyLang say then I get
> MyLang.java for the parser which isn't very good. So I change it to
> MyLangParser but then I get MyLangParserLexer.java.
> Perhaps if it automatically appended Parser to the parser name as
> well. So "grammar MyLang" would generate MyLangParser.(java|tokens)
> and MyLangLexer.(java|tokens). If this change was just applied to
> combined specs it would produce natural output names but would
> slightly complicate input-output mapping. MyLang.g could generate
> either:
> 1) MyLang.java - a lexer, parser or tree parser
> 2) MyLangParser.java and MyLangLexer.g (currently this will produce
> MyLang.java and MyLangLexer.java)
> You could force the grammar name to include the type for seperate
> specs, so a combined grammar would be MyLang.g while a seperate lexer
> must be MyLangLexer.g. This makes input->output mapping consistent and
> seems fine for parsers\lexers though AssignSymbolsTreeParser.g is a
> little less natural than just AssignSymbols.g.
>
> Also, perhaps the default scope could represent the combined grammar.
> This seems more logical. In a combined definition the unscoped @header
> block is naturally thought of as the header for both parser and lexer.
> So you'd have:
> @header { package mypackage; }
> @parser::header { int parserState;}
> @lexer::header { int lexerState; }
>
> Tom.
> On 7/9/06, Terence Parr <parrt at cs.usfca.edu> wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 7, 2006, at 7:14 PM, Micheal J wrote:
>> >
>> >>> On Jul 7, 2006, at 5:45 PM, Sohail Somani wrote:
>> >>> Are we also going to require that *only* t exists in t.g?
>> >>>
>> >
>> >> On Jul 8, 2006, at 02:06 AM, Terence Parr wrote:
>> >> Yep.  One grammar per file.
>> >>
>> >> Ter
>> a) it's "<grammarName>Lexer"
>>
>> b) Yup.
>>
>> @header {...}
>> @lexer::header {...}
>>
>> Ter
>>
>