[antlr-interest] Can subrules be set to 'n-to-m'?

[Sebastian Kaliszewski]

+1 for optional parens...

On Saturday 26 March 2005 20:55, Scott Stanchfield wrote:
[snip]
> What is the problem here??? Why do you insist on making me waste
> keystrokes and make the grammar LESS clear?
>
> Expressions have been written this way for 30 or more years in the
> computer field, and well longer than that in mathematics.
[snip]
> Based on the experience I've had introducing people to ANTLR, yes. They
> ALL ask about why the parens are needed.
>
> Think about how many people use regular expressions.
>
>   a+b*
>
> Rather than
>
>   (a)+(b)*
>
>
> Why insist on redefining common usage of + and *???
>

I'm with Scott here... Too much parens obfuscate the .g code for me. 
Hey, it's ANTLR, not Lisp, after all.

rgds
-- 
Sebastian Kaliszewski