[antlr-interest] A proposal for keywords
shmuel siegel
antlr at shmuelhome.mine.nu
Tue May 23 15:50:04 PDT 2006
Loring Craymer wrote:
>...
> For option 2, literal types should be bound in the parser: that is, the
> lexer binds the generic type to the token (TEXT or NUMBER, for example)
> and the dynamically looks up the next token in the literals table
> whenever attempting to match a literal. That is, “if” would be first
> typed as TEXT but matched (and retyped) as LITERAL_if when matching an
> occurrence of “if” in the parser.
>
Why are you limiting yourself to this type of situation. Why don't we
expand the concept. Why not let the lexer return a set of token types
that match the TEXT. The parser rule would have to resolve the
ambiguity. The grammar rule would be considered ambiguous if the parser
would accept two different types that had the same TEXT.
Let's say that I have a positional parameter in a function call that can
take on the number zero or an empty string (I actually have such a
grammar). It would be nice to be able to specify this explicitly
(without predicates) even though "zero" is also an "integer" and "empty
string" is also a "string".
Or is this what you are saying?
Shmuel
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.7.0/345 - Release Date: 5/22/2006
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.7.0/345 - Release Date: 5/22/2006
More information about the antlr-interest
mailing list