[antlr-interest] advice for grammar modification

[John B. Brodie]

> > > rulename : ( ( rules... )+
> > >              { actions; } )?
> > >          ;
> >
> > This is correct, but to me the next approach sounds better:
> >
> > > rulename : { boolean doit = false; }
> > >          ( rules {doit=true;} )*
> > >          { if(doit) {actions;} }
> 
> > Thanks for your answer!
> > You're right, the readability is better in the variant with the boolean.
> > I'll take that in account for my future work.
> 
> Readability is subjective, certainly, but it seems that the ANTLR-only
> version is clearer because it's using ANTLR to control flow, rather
> than requiring action blocks to do something that is built into the
> ANTLR language - something that you must already know if using
> ANTLR....
> 
> But that's just me :-)

and I guess I fall in-between these. to me:

rule1 : ( rule2 )? ;
rule2 : ( rule3 ... )+ { action;... }

is clearer.

no flags. 
avoids (directly) the (to me) confusing ((x)+)? construct.
the ((x)+)? is still there but is split across two rules.

just my 2cents...

   -jbb