[antlr-interest] wildcard in tree grammar
Gavin Lambert
antlr at mirality.co.nz
Sat Nov 29 15:23:25 PST 2008
At 09:58 30/11/2008, Oliver Zeigermann wrote:
>Hmmm. Just checked that with the latest snapshot of ANTLR 3.2,
>but it really does not work, but it should, right? Why can "."
>not be a tree root?
Yes, that's what Sam Harwell and myself were discussing earlier in
this thread; I think we agree that this should be considered as
valid.
(I gave a detailed description of how I think it should behave
earlier on, but the general idea was to make ANTLR parse the tree
as if it were a "real" tree rather than the "flat" tree that it's
actually implemented as.)
More information about the antlr-interest
mailing list