[antlr-interest] Can subrules be set to 'n-to-m'?
Scott Stanchfield
scott at javadude.com
Fri Mar 25 04:23:47 PST 2005
I think the "+" is redundant here...
Normally I'd say
(...){n,m}
but of course that's ambiguous with actions, so
(...)[n,m]
Should suffice.
BUT,
While I'm at it, can (...) be optional for single-ref repetition? For
example, I'd love to be able to use:
Foo[int x]
: fee fie+ fo CRUFT* fum[x]*
;
and only use parens for multiple ref repetion or action inclusion:
foo
: fee
( fie {...} )+
fo
(a b c d)*
;
Of course this would mean that foo[n,m] would be ambiguous under my request,
so we would have to do something like
foo+[x,m]
for n-m repetition...
(But think about what foo+[0,4] means... Kinda the same as foo*[4])
Thoughts?
-- Scott
> -----Original Message-----
> From: antlr-interest-bounces at antlr.org
> [mailto:antlr-interest-bounces at antlr.org] On Behalf Of Bryan Ewbank
> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 2:33 AM
> To: antlr-interest Interest
> Subject: Re: [antlr-interest] Can subrules be set to 'n-to-m'?
>
> > I'm thinking about this for 3.0. Perhaps (...)+[n,m] ????
>
> Are "n" and "m" here constants, or variables? I ask because
> this could be used for function call support if they are variables.
More information about the antlr-interest
mailing list