[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