[antlr-interest] What is the real value of ANTLR TreeParsing?
open.zone at virgin.net
Thu Jul 25 11:34:26 PDT 2002
Can anyone please define what the real value of TreeParsers are?
I am more familiar with the construction of a custom AST object
hierarchy that supports the use of ConcreteVisitors (cf The Visitor
Pattern) to implement phases such as type-checking, code-generateion
Given that TreeParsers essentially mandate the use of ANTLR's own AST
structure, I feel the need to be very clear about their utility. So
far all I can see is:
a. Since ANTLR AST is used, AST creation is easier and absorbed into
grammar creation costs
b. Supplied utilities (ParseView and ASTFrame) allows visualization
c. For [relatively straightforward] source-to-source translation
tasks, TreeParsers are probably the best choice given the reduction
in code required and the "executable documentation" aspect of the *.g
Since choosing to use TreeParsers also effectively precludes using
custom ASTs and the Visitor pattern....are there any limitations to
adopting ANTLR ASTs and TreeParsers?. The project of interest is a
code transformer/analyzer for about three custom languages. It is
written in Java currently (without ANTLR) but a switch to C++ is
likely if I can find decent C++ ANTLR examples to build off.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
More information about the antlr-interest