[antlr-interest] [3.1.1] ANTLR3_MIN_TOKEN_TYPE define possibly incorrect

[Sven Van Echelpoel]

> > 
> > Should LT(1) return a node in (2), or does that signal that something's
> > amiss? If the behavior of LT(1) is correct, how can I determine that a
> > node has no next sibling?
> 
> <UP> signals the end of the current "level" of tree. I've not played 
> with it much, but I believe the idea is that, in a tree parser, you 
> don't need to pay attention to <UP> and <DOWN>. If you've got a true 
> single-root tree, there will always be an <UP> just before the EOF. 
> However, my understanding is that tree-grammar writers don't have to 
> bother with these. LT will still show them, I guess. Wouldn't it be 
> better to have the tree parser control the application of the rule by 
> only applying it "under" the node above? Or if this *is* at the top 
> level, your solution might well work, as you've demonstrated that you 
> only get the <UP> when there isn't a next sibling.
> 
I don't think I can write a grammar to capture what I'm trying to do
(See my other reply). I may be wrong, in which case I'll happily stand
corrected.

Thanks,

Sven