Divide and conquer, one thing is the fucionality of a syntax and recognization rules and other diferent is the semantic.
Cheers, Marouane 2009/8/3 Jeroen van Schagen <[email protected]>: > Hello, > > Currently I'm working on my first tree grammar after reading the definitive > ANTLR reference. Personally I love the concept of tree grammars, but there > are some things that seem a bit unlogical to me. Why do you have to specify > "tree matching rules" after having specified recognition rules and rewrite > rules? Wouldn't it be allot more productive and most definately less > error-prone to extend a parser grammar and only overwrite the rules in which > you want to embed action code? Just imagion having a project with a dozen > tree grammars and somthing changes in the parser grammar, e.g. two nodes are > swapped, you would have to change all tree grammars. Not the mention the > amount of duplicate code you would have to write. > > Yours, > Jeroen > > > List: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-interest > Unsubscribe: > http://www.antlr.org/mailman/options/antlr-interest/your-email-address > > -- Marouane List: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-interest Unsubscribe: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/options/antlr-interest/your-email-address --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "il-antlr-interest" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/il-antlr-interest?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
