[antlr-interest] ST 4.0 planning
Terence Parr
parrt at cs.usfca.edu
Mon Sep 8 11:52:26 PDT 2008
Actually,I pass in lots of aggregate objects like User and FAQEntry
and Grammar. We need field access I'm afraid.
Ter
On Sep 8, 2008, at 11:45 AM, Loring Craymer wrote:
> Ter--
>
> I think that the reflection requirement is unnecessary and
> undesireable. An attribute is usually one of: 1.) a String, 2.) a
> StringTemplate, or 3.) Boolean, and you could probably avoid
> Booleans as well with a bit of judicious design (single-valued
> "true" or "false" strings, for example). On rare occasion, it may
> make sense to support an esoteric data type, but that can be handled
> via wrapper: the wrapper, after all, only needs to know how to do
> "toString()", and it is trivial to implement subclass wrappers for
> each esoteric type. For that matter, you could support a generic
> Java wrapper that used reflection, but subclass a base wrapper class
> in languages that do not support reflection.
More information about the antlr-interest
mailing list