[antlr-interest] Re: Antlr grammar to parse Java classfile?

Terence Parr parrt at jguru.com
Thu Dec 6 12:36:02 PST 2001

On Wednesday, December 5, 2001, at 01:25  PM, jsrs701 wrote:
> <obsequiousness>
> Ye flipping gods, man, don't you just wake up in the morning full of
> pride at the amazing critter you have invented?  I wouldn't be able
> to get through doorways my head would be so big!  You deserve mucho
> kudos.
> </obsequiousness>

Aw shucks.  Well, it's one of those things where once you've built 
something, it's seems like no big deal.  Lots of people have lent their 
brain power too--I've just kept the project single-minded.  Plus, any 
more french fries and I'll have trouble getting my stomach through the 
door not my head! ;)

>> Anyway, concerning the "match n times" thing.  You're right...it
> would
>> be pretty useful.  What syntax is appropriate and how to do you say
>> 0...n vs 1..n?
> I'd vote for Perl's RE syntax...
> {n}    Match exactly n times
> {n,}   Match at least n times
> {n,m}  Match at least n, at most m times
> ...but I know the curly braces are gonna wreak havoc with the
> existing ANTLR syntax.

Yeah the curlies could be an issue.  Hmm...the uncertainties of n,m also 
mess with the analysis. :(

> Um, that just doesn't look quite right, but since I don't have a
> better solution, I won't press the point.  :-)

Yeah, that's the problem with adding significant features requiring 
syntax changes...it can get really messy.  If I build ANTLR 3.0, I'll 
build the complete spec first, get buy-in from everybody, and then code 
it methodically. :)

Chief Scientist & Co-founder, http://www.jguru.com
Creator, ANTLR Parser Generator: http://www.antlr.org


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

More information about the antlr-interest mailing list