Re: More Antlr4-based Groovy parser status update

+1 👏 Sent from my iPad > On 11 Mar 2016, at 11:11, Guillaume Laforge 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 tremendous

Re: More Antlr4-based Groovy parser status update

Yup, that would be great as metadata! On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Jesper Steen Møller wrote: > Hi Guillaume > > This is not covered by the current code, but it can be added. I guess this > could be set as “metadata” on types, package, properties, methods, and > fields? > > -Jesper > > On 1

Re: More Antlr4-based Groovy parser status update

Hi Guillaume This is not covered by the current code, but it can be added. I guess this could be set as “metadata” on types, package, properties, methods, and fields? -Jesper > On 11. mar. 2016, at 11.11, Guillaume Laforge wrote: > > By the way, I had a question (unrelated to the below thread

Re: More Antlr4-based Groovy parser status update

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 rea

Re: More Antlr4-based Groovy parser status update

Hi Jochen > On 29. feb. 2016, at 11.39, Jochen Theodorou wrote: > > On 28.02.2016 12:55, Jesper Steen Møller wrote: > [...] >> * Memory: Is this an issue I should be focusing on — and is there a >>test to baseline against? > > no test you can baseline against imho. The current approach is k

Re: More Antlr4-based Groovy parser status update

On 28.02.2016 12:55, Jesper Steen Møller wrote: [...] * Memory: Is this an issue I should be focusing on — and is there a test to baseline against? no test you can baseline against imho. The current approach is keeping everything in memory and uses that for the cst part, which is build

Aw: Re: More Antlr4-based Groovy parser status update

y.apache.org Betreff: Re: More Antlr4-based Groovy parser status update Hi Pascal,   Thank you, I’d missed that one.   Any thought on the validity of “- -1”?   -Jesper   On 28. feb. 2016, at 18.23, Pascal Schumacher <pascalschumac...@gmx.net> wrote:   Hi Jesper, thanks for the u

Re: More Antlr4-based Groovy parser status update

Hi Pascal, Thank you, I’d missed that one. Any thought on the validity of “- -1”? -Jesper > On 28. feb. 2016, at 18.23, Pascal Schumacher > wrote: > > Hi Jesper, > > thanks for the update. :) Nice to hear you are progressing. > > Concerning the ASTBuilder to

Re: More Antlr4-based Groovy parser status update

Hi Jesper, thanks for the update. :) Nice to hear you are progressing. Concerning the ASTBuilder to Java conversion, there is a pull request with this at the old repo https://github.com/groovy/groovy-core/pull/513 Cheers, Pascal Am 28.02.2016 um 12:55 schrieb Jesper Steen Møller: Hi Groovy-

Re: More Antlr4-based Groovy parser status update

Just a clarification: I wrote: > I’ve 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? > By “currently”, I mea

More Antlr4-based Groovy parser status update

Hi Groovy-Dev Here’s 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 I’v