[antlr-interest] found more bugs in ANTLRv3.g + howto add separator when parallel iterating 2 lists in stringtemplate

[Terence Parr]

Actully, i left that and changed elementNoOption

	|   treeSpec
		(	ebnfSuffix	-> ^( ebnfSuffix ^(BLOCK["BLOCK"] ^(ALT["ALT"] treeSpec  
EOA["EOA"]) EOB["EOB"]) )
		|				-> treeSpec
		)
	;

On Jul 8, 2008, at 10:53 AM, Terence Parr wrote:

> Right...current parser doesn't handle but let's fix for v3 grammar.
> Ter
> On Jul 8, 2008, at 7:00 AM, Jens Boeykens wrote:
>
>> Still one more;)
>>
>> In treeSpec there is functionality missing to support suffixes. E.g.
>>
>> r: ^(a b)+;
>>
>> will not parse. Fixed it with this:
>>
>> treeSpec
>>    :    '^(' element ( element )+ ')' ebnfSuffix? -> ^(TREE_BEGIN  
>> element+ ebnfSuffix?)
>>    ;
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Jens
>>
>> 2008/7/8 Jens Boeykens <jens.boeykens at gmail.com>:
>> Another error in ANTLRv3.g:
>>
>> rewrite_tree_element
>>    :    rewrite_tree_atom
>>    |    rewrite_tree_atom ebnfSuffix
>>        -> ^( ebnfSuffix ^(BLOCK["BLOCK"] ^(ALT["ALT"]  
>> rewrite_tree_atom EOA["EOA"]) EOB["EOB"]))
>>    |   rewrite_tree
>>        (    ebnfSuffix
>>            -> ^(ebnfSuffix ^(BLOCK["BLOCK"] ^(ALT["ALT"]  
>> rewrite_tree EOA["EOA"]) EOB["EOB"]))
>>        |    -> rewrite_tree
>>        )
>>    |   rewrite_tree_ebnf
>>    ;
>>
>>
>> The 3rd alternative did not include the ebnfSuffix in the tree. It  
>> seems nothing needs to be changed in ANTLRv3Tree.g but I don't  
>> fully understand the transition of rewrite_tree_element from  
>> ANTLRv3.g to ANTLRv3Tree.g so I could be mistaken here.
>>
>> Jens
>>
>>
>> 2008/7/8 Jens Boeykens <jens.boeykens at gmail.com>:
>> Another detail for rule rewrite_tree_atom that I am not sure if it  
>> is correct:
>>
>> In ANTLRv3.g :               ^(TOKEN_REF ARG_ACTION?)
>> In ANTLRv3Tree.g:         ^(TOKEN_REF ARG_ACTION)
>>
>> The question mark dissapeared.  I added  it  in my code, but  not  
>> sure if it is necessary...
>>
>> Another thing I did not understand very well (probably my own  
>> fault ;) ) :
>> There is a rule called "rewrite_template_block" which is defined,  
>> but no other rule seems to be using it. Does this make the rule  
>> obsolete? I noticed this because I have not yet encountered a  
>> testcase where the rule was used, so I am not sure wether I should  
>> write more tests or the rule is indeed obsolete.
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> 2008/7/8 Jens Boeykens <jens.boeykens at gmail.com>:
>>
>> Thanks it worked!!
>>
>> I've encounterd another issue with ANTLRv3.g but it's not a very  
>> important one. When you end your grammar with a single line comment  
>> like
>>
>> // this is my comment<eof>
>>
>> thus no '\n' at the end but directly end of file, the parser will  
>> complain it is looking for a '\n'.
>>
>> Jens
>>
>> 2008/7/7 Terence Parr <parrt at cs.usfca.edu>:
>>
>>
>> On Jul 7, 2008, at 2:23 PM, Jens Boeykens wrote:
>> block(blok, optionsSpec, alternative, rewrite, eob) ::= <<
>> <alternative,rewrite: {alt,rw | <alt> <rw> | }>
>> >>
>>
>> I have one '|' too many in my output:
>> r: a -> int | b -> char |;
>>
>> Use <...; separator="|">
>>
>> Sorry I can't find the exact syntax to use here. Remember I need 2  
>> lists here.
>> <alternative,rewrite; separator=" | ">  and <alternative rewrite;  
>> separator=" | "> give errors...
>>
>> Oh, sorry.
>>
>> <alternative,rewrite: {alt,rw | <alt> <rw>}; separator="|">
>>
>> Should work
>> Ter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>