[antlr-interest] Dumb newbie question dept: Anyway to simulate lexical states?
Loring Craymer
lgcraymer at yahoo.com
Wed Jun 23 11:56:47 PDT 2010
The major barrier to use of lexical states with ANTLR 3 is the rule option "backtracking = true" that is tacked onto the Tokens rule when it is constructed. That seems to interfere with predicate hoisting.
--Loring
----- Original Message ----
> From: Gerald Rosenberg <gerald at certiv.net>
> To: scott_boag at us.ibm.com
> Cc: antlr-interest at antlr.org
> Sent: Wed, June 23, 2010 9:26:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [antlr-interest] Dumb newbie question dept: Anyway to simulate lexical states?
>
> ------ Original Message (Wednesday, June 23, 2010 11:34:09
AM) From:
> scott_boag ------
Subject: [antlr-interest] Dumb newbie question dept: Anyway
> to simulate
lexical states?
> So, the concrete question is, is it
> possible in ANTLR3 to filter out sets
> of tokens based on a
> predicates
>
The short answer is, yes. Without
> knowing more about the problem you
are having, I can only guess that you may
> be failing to recognize that
the lexer is effectively k=1. An easy
> solution is to not leave gaps in
predicate predictions.
List:
> href="http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-interest" target=_blank
> >http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-interest
Unsubscribe:
> href="http://www.antlr.org/mailman/options/antlr-interest/your-email-address"
> target=_blank
> >http://www.antlr.org/mailman/options/antlr-interest/your-email-address
More information about the antlr-interest
mailing list