[antlr-interest] wildcard in tree grammar

[Terence Parr]

not sure.  I guess i left out as it's weird.  When would you write:  
^(. ID).  It's always the root that says what kind of thing it is,  
right?

added

http://www.antlr.org:8888/browse/ANTLR-368

Ter
On Nov 30, 2008, at 1:55 AM, Oliver Zeigermann wrote:

> Great. Thanks!
>
> Can we expect that in 3.2?
>
> Oliver
>
> 2008/11/30 Terence Parr <parrt at cs.usfca.edu>:
>> I agree. '.' as root should be ok.  I'll have to go back and make  
>> it context
>> sensitive.  Right now, '.' can be a subtree as well.  it would mess  
>> up
>> analysis.
>> Ter
>> On Nov 29, 2008, at 3:23 PM, Gavin Lambert wrote:
>>
>>> At 09:58 30/11/2008, Oliver Zeigermann wrote:
>>>> Hmmm. Just checked that with the latest snapshot of ANTLR 3.2,
>>>> but it really does not work, but it should, right? Why can "."
>>>> not be a tree root?
>>>
>>> Yes, that's what Sam Harwell and myself were discussing earlier in  
>>> this
>>> thread; I think we agree that this should be considered as valid.
>>>
>>> (I gave a detailed description of how I think it should behave  
>>> earlier on,
>>> but the general idea was to make ANTLR parse the tree as if it  
>>> were a "real"
>>> tree rather than the "flat" tree that it's actually implemented as.)
>>>
>>
>>