[antlr-interest] A postmortem of my use of antler
Terence Parr
parrt at cs.usfca.edu
Tue Mar 11 11:09:47 PDT 2008
On Mar 11, 2008, at 11:00 AM, Andy Tripp wrote:
> Gerald B. Rosenberg wrote:
>> And, design in Antlr is largely a function of the language to be
>> recognized. If you look at the archived grammars, what at first
>> appears to be wildly varying styles is more a consequence of design
>> choices tailored to the intended function of the grammars.
>>
> Here: http://www.antlr.org/pipermail/antlr-interest/2004-October/009742.html
> I compare the two ASTs built by two people for the same language
> (Java 1.5), and the
> ASTs have some differences. There's no particular reason for the
> differences (it's not like one person
> needed the AST to look one way, and the other another way).
>
> Again, my point is that it would be nice to have ANTLR by default
> build a reasonable AST without
> any explicit AST-building syntax ("^" and "!") in the grammar.
how could ANTLR *possibly* know the structure of the AST to build
except for, perhaps, expressions? parse tree, yes. AST, no.
Ter
More information about the antlr-interest
mailing list