[antlr-interest] Syntactic anti-predicates
Steve Bennett
stevagewp at gmail.com
Sat Feb 9 19:48:50 PST 2008
On 2/10/08, Gavin Lambert <antlr at mirality.co.nz> wrote:
> Why not just use:
>
> ruleA
> : (X Y Z) => ruleXYZ
> | ruleNotXYZ
> ;
Ok, well say the context looks something like this:
ruleB:
ruleA*
X Y W
;
What I want to do is tell ruleA to break out if there's X Y W coming
rather than X Y Z. Maybe it's as simple as:
ruleA: (X Y Z) => X Y Z;
as you suggest. I'm probably just confused :)
Steve
More information about the antlr-interest
mailing list