[antlr-interest] Re: Request enhancement ANTLR
Dennis Marsa
drm at xilinx.com
Tue Jun 25 09:12:05 PDT 2002
Silvain Piree wrote:
>
> > You're right that getFilename() may not return something
> > useful, but it could return something indicating that the
> > filename is not there, either an empty string, or "<no file>",
> > or something.
>
> Sounds reasonable, but wouldn't it impact existing users,
> who depend on the getFilename() behaviour?
I don't think so.
To be explicit, I'm suggesting adding a new NoViableAltException
constructor. The existing two argument (token, filename) constructor
could stay for compatibility reasons.
public class NoViableAltException extends RecognitionException {
// suggested new constructor
public NoViableAltException(Token t) {
super("NoViableAlt", t.getFilename(), t.getLine(), t.getColumn());
token = t;
}
// existing constructor
public NoViableAltException(Token t, String fileName_) {
super("NoViableAlt", fileName_, t.getLine(), t.getColumn());
token = t;
}
<remainder of class definition omitted for brevity>
}
But, it seems most NoViableAltException constructions are generated by
ANTLR, so it could easily be updated to use the new single-argument
constructor without impacting users.
Any existing explicit NoViableAltException constructions made by the
user would still get the two-argument version, but could be updated
to use the single-argument version.
Dennis
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
More information about the antlr-interest
mailing list