[antlr-interest] how useful would a generic grammar "action" language be?

[Oliver Zeigermann]

Terence Parr wrote:
> Yeah, I'm semi-skeptical but it's a nice dream.  Perhaps it will only 
> be good for sem preds?

For sure, because sem preds are part of the analysis part of the 
grammar. Maybe you could think of completly removing all other synthesis 
actions (except for sem preds and setting of conditions for them of 
course specified in your pseudo-language) from the grammar and find 
another way of specifying semantic actions outside of it. I know sableCC 
elaborated some concepts how to do this. Unfortunately, I have no deeper 
insight into this...

Oliver



 

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