[antlr-interest] On trees and JavaBeans, part 2: tree creation

[Scott Stanchfield]

I assume you mean no interfaces? Some have abstract classes, but others
don't have anything like it.

You're screwed...

<kidding> 

The existing approach (AST interface) would be a problem anyway, no?

-- Scott


> -----Original Message-----
> From: antlr-interest-bounces at antlr.org 
> [mailto:antlr-interest-bounces at antlr.org] On Behalf Of Bryan Ewbank
> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 9:16 AM
> To: ANTLR Interest
> Subject: Re: [antlr-interest] On trees and JavaBeans, part 2: 
> tree creation
> 
> So, hows about other target languages that don't have some of 
> the stuff assumed by this discussion?
> 
> Lots of people have been talking about:
> > > > Also, you still need a tree node of some kind to actually 
> > > > implement a tree.  Perhaps Tree and TreeNode?
> > >
> > > Perhaps but a TreeModel-style interface doesn't care or 
> know about 
> > > the concrete types. That is encapsulated in 
> implementation classes.
> > 
> > Exactly. All args/return types are Object, integer, or String.
>