[antlr-interest] Broken Features?

Foust javafoust at gmail.com
Sat Aug 16 16:10:30 PDT 2008


Does it really make sense for Antlr to have such an expressive syntax, when
it is not fully implemented?

 

rule :

n+=('@'? NAME)                              // adds null to the ArrayList

 

n+= NAME                                          // works as expected

 

There are many features like this, that are accepted by the grammar, but
don't work as expected and give no warning or other indication, other than
needing to be debugged. Is the problem design flaws that just don't have a
good solution at the moment, or that v3, being a rewrite, is still in the
prototype stage (with the new syntax still being worked out)?

 

This particular feature (being able to assign an alias to an expression) is
really useful, but would be more so if it worked completely. Is the intent
to leave it partially implemented, fix it at some point, fix the syntax to
disallow unsupported expressions, or document the limitations and produce
warnings in the compiler?

 

Brent

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.antlr.org/pipermail/antlr-interest/attachments/20080816/50b65bac/attachment.html 


More information about the antlr-interest mailing list