+1 đ Sent from my iPad
> On 11 Mar 2016, at 11:11, Guillaume Laforge <glafo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > By the way, I had a question (unrelated to the below thread, but related to > the grammar) :-) > > Do you keep the comment information? > It's something we've always said we should support, and it would tremendously > help making a less hackish groovydoc tool. > Having AST nodes for JavaDoc comments would really be great. > > Guillaume > >> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Jesper Steen Møller <jes...@selskabet.org> >> wrote: >> Hi Groovy-Dev >> >> Hereâs another update on the progress on the Antlr4 parser, as maintained on >> https://github.com/jespersm/groovy.git (in the antlr4 branch). >> To play with it, try: >> >> $ git clone -b antlr4 https://jespe...@github.com/jespersm/groovy.git >> $ cd groovy >> $ gradle -PuseAntlr4=true console >> >> Iâve fixed a number of issues: >> Support method pointer operator >> Attributes/method/property names as strings/gstrings >> Real support for unary plus and minus (mimics old parserâs behaviour) >> Compilation units not ending with semicolon or newline >> Slashy strings could span lines, confusing division statements and comments >> I can now explore the new grammar and AST building using the Console, which >> is fun, but itâs very easy to find unsupported constructs. Mapping out the >> full Groovy grammar from the documentation alone is quite a task. Just >> today, I discovered lacking support for âassertâ and for âsuperâ-calls. The >> smaller issues currently are: >> assert >> super() >> Full Unicode letter support for identifiers >> Support identifiers as property names and map literal entry names >> >> The bigger issue is with converting the ASTBuilder to pure Java, a task I >> havnât started yet. Actually, this poses a different question for AST >> generation: Whether to switch from tree-walking the parse tree (so whole >> tree must be kept in memory), to the listener-based approach, where the AST >> is built mostly bottom-up, ensuring smaller memory footprint. >> >> So you can help me with a couple of answers: >> Memory: Is this an issue I should be focusing on â and is there a test to >> baseline against? >> Iâve discovered a small issue with unary syntax. Currently, nested unary >> expressions are not supported without parenthesis: Try e.g. - -1 or + -1. Is >> this intentional, or just an artifact of the precedence-refactored Java >> grammar? >> >> -Jesper > > > > -- > Guillaume Laforge > Apache Groovy committer & PMC Vice-President > Product Ninja & Advocate at Restlet > > Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/ > Social: @glaforge / Google+
