[antlr-interest] Q: opinions on ikvm + antlr3 ?

[C. Mundi]

I have a further thought on this:

On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 2:03 AM, Johannes Luber <JALuber at gmx.de> wrote:

Con: I haven't checked it, but I believe that IKVM won't create the .NETisms
> like properties instead getters and setters. If true, your parser backend
> will be schizophrenic regarding the approaches.
> Con: .NET-only additions like #pragmas to silence warnings won't be
> inlcuded.


I think I managed to trick myself, by forgetting that I've been looking at
too many alternatives.

What I'm thinking of is using the ANTLR java tool and writing all of my
actions in Java.  Next, compile the java to bytecode targeting the JVM.
 Then, use ikvmc to do a one-time translation of the JVM bytecode to .NET IL
bytecode, i.e. a .NET assembly.  According to the IKVM folks, I would have
to write my own classloder if I need to load Java classes dynamicaly.
Otherwise, I would never see C#, because I'd be coding in Java.

(Ok, it's actually a little more complex.  Write lexer in Java.  Compile
lexer class to JVM bytecode.  Recompile to IL (ikvmc).  Create java stub for
lexer IL (ikvmstub).  Write parser in Java, by getting token stream from
java stub of lexer.  Compile parser class to JVM bytecode.  Recompile to
IL.  Done.

It seems like the properties v. setter/getter concern goes away in this
scenario.  Am I completely wrong?

C. Mundi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.antlr.org/pipermail/antlr-interest/attachments/20090206/1c6a8d7c/attachment.html