[antlr-interest] anybody get bitten by ANTLR's AST interface requirement

[Terence Parr]

On Jan 19, 2006, at 7:53 AM, Andy Tripp wrote:

> Terence Parr wrote:
>
>> Howdy, i'm working on tree parser error recovery over next few   
>> days...my efforts are hampered by my earlier decision to not  
>> require  nodes to answer any interface...i use an adaptor for  
>> construction and  navigation.  No biggie.  However, it sure would  
>> be nice to say "all  antlr trees satisfy the Tree" interface.   
>> This is what v2 does (AST  interface).  Was this a huge problem  
>> for anyone?
>>
>> Ter
>>
> Not sure if this is on-topic, but...
>
> There was that guy who had the complaint about the way the AST  
> hierarchy is
> currently structured. IIRC, his complaint was that BaseAST, as an  
> abstract class,
> should not declare variables "down" and "right". He's prefer if you  
> had declared
> abstract getDown() and getRight() methods in BaseAST, and implement  
> those methods
> in CommonAST. He had ASTs that were huge, and he had some other  
> mechanism to
> use lazy evaluation rather than allocate "down" and "right" for  
> every AST. But he couldn't
> extend BaseAST and reuse its other functionality, he basically had  
> to modify BaseAST.

Good to know.  Though in his case he could still implement AST with  
no ill effects.

> Also, I'd get rid of all the antlr.collections stuff and  
> ASTIterator and ASTPair and use
> use the standard collections and generics.

Yup. :)

Ter