[antlr-interest] 3.0 final will require t.g has t in it

[Terence Parr]

On Jul 7, 2006, at 7:14 PM, Micheal J wrote:
>
>>> On Jul 7, 2006, at 5:45 PM, Sohail Somani wrote:
>>> Are we also going to require that *only* t exists in t.g?
>>>
>
>> On Jul 8, 2006, at 02:06 AM, Terence Parr wrote:
>> Yep.  One grammar per file.
>>
>> Ter
>
> Did you mean one explicit grammar per file?. IIRC, parser grammars can
> define a lexer implicitly.

Yes, one "grammar" keyword, but could be combined parser/lexer.

> Incidentally, (a) how would such a lexer be named? and, (b) was the  
> @header
> issue resolved? (i.e. @header contents not getting into implicitly  
> defined
> lexers).

a) it's "<grammarName>Lexer"

b) Yup.

@header {...}
@lexer::header {...}

Ter