[antlr-interest] Names of generated files and classes
Loring Craymer
lgcraymer at yahoo.com
Mon Aug 6 14:26:42 PDT 2007
Ter--
How about just adding a "LexerName" option to combined
grammars? Then the parser could get the base grammar
name, and users would have complete control over the
naming and (should) stop complaining.
--Loring
--- Terence Parr <parrt at cs.usfca.edu> wrote:
> Guys, I'm liking Johannes' proposal to go back to
> "type grammar X;"
> generating X.java or X.c etc... Only combined
> grammars would get the
> suffix Parser / Lexer as they *need* a way to
> distinguishes the
> classes. Note that tree grammars are already "tree
> grammar X" ->
> X.java. The -depend option will tell build tools
> all about the output.
>
> If we changed for 3.1, then regenerating code from
> noncombined
> grammars would require a change in the invocation
> code perhaps, but
> combined is the common case. The impact would be
> minimal either
> way. It's messy right now:
>
> lexer grammar TLexer;
>
> generates TLexerLexer.java
>
> Ter
>
____________________________________________________________________________________Ready for the edge of your seat?
Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/
More information about the antlr-interest
mailing list