> 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." --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "il-antlr-interest" group. To post to this group, send email to il-antlr-interest@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to il-antlr-interest+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/il-antlr-interest?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
List: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-interest Unsubscribe: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/options/antlr-interest/your-email-address