[antlr-interest] Possible Antlr defect?

[Stuart Dootson]

On 10/06/07, Terence Parr <parrt at cs.usfca.edu> wrote:
>
> On Jun 9, 2007, at 5:25 PM, Stuart Dootson wrote:
> > But - don't all tokens need to be defined *somewhere*? For example, on
> > page 179 of the PDF of the book, we find the follwoing statement:
> >
> > 'The imaginary token must be defined elsewhere in a grammar or in the
> > tokens section.'
> >
> > I thought that was the idea of the 'tokens' section - to provide a
> > mechanism for defining tokens not produced by the lexer, meaning that
> > all tokens were defined somewhere? And if all tokens are defined, you
> > have a complete list of them that you can validate token usage
> > against?
>
> That "elsewhere in a grammar" is the key.  Just referencing a token
> defines it as well as using the tokens section.
> Ter

One final thing that's puzzling me - when I use the same grammar in a
combined lexer/parser grammar, Antlr does complain, like so (same
parser grammar as before, same lexer and token types as before):

warning(105): Test.g:14:5: no lexer rule corresponding to token: ID

Is a combined grammar a special case in this respect?

Stuart