[antlr-interest] Doubt regarding Tree grammar

[jevitha]

>
> Hi all,
>
>    Im facing this problem of converting parser grammar to tree grammar.
> I have some rules which incrementally build ASTs  like the following
> example:
>
> postfixExpression : (primary->primary)
>                                      ( '(' args=expressionList ')' ->
> ^(CALL $postfixExpression $args)
>                                    | '[' ie=expression ']'  -> ^(INDEX
> $postfixExpression $ie)
>                                    | '.' p=primary -> ^(FIELDACCESS
> $postfixExpression $p) )*;



> When i convert this to tree grammar by removing the parser grammar leaving
> alone the rewrite rules, im unable to use the $postfixExpression in the tree
> grammar ... What is the equivaent i should use to denote the node already
> built for the rule?



Thanks in advance,

>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Jevitha
>
> "Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to
> see what you believed in."
>
>
>


-- 
Best Regards,
Jevitha

"Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see
what you believed in."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.antlr.org/pipermail/antlr-interest/attachments/20090506/16de6aaf/attachment.html