Re: [antlr-dev] C# dot spec output

Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:00:51 -0700

Johannes Luber wrote: 
Johannes Luber wrote:
    
    I think that it would be trivial to put it back in without a
        
string 
    
template dependency to be honest. I don't have string template in the 
    
C 
        
version for instance. But, whichever way seems best :-)
      
    
  
      
What's your suggestion for doing so? Using object as type?
  
Oh, that isn't the problem, Sam was just saying he did not want 
thatStringTemplate dependency, which the Java runtime has.
    

Is having a dependency to ST so bad?
Not sure really. I can see that many might wish to not have an extra jar/reference for something that they do not use. 
Or don't you, Sam, want to require ST even in the case that one doesn't use it?
I think that is what Sam is saying, however I am not sure that putting something that is used by ANTLR into ST is the correct answer either.
Is moving the Dot stuff causing an organizational problem (extra code not used by ST)? If not, why didn't you, Ter, put it there already?

  
All you need 
dois take out the StringTemplate stuff that is being used to generate 
the.dot spec and replace it with building a String variable instead;
    

I've been thinking about this today, but I can't think of what you, Jim, would put into there.
Ye s- there isn't a C version of ST :-)
I imagine that the ST version requires merely to fill in the blanks.
Yeah standard ST stuff, just keep adding in nodes and edges and let ST toString take care of it. 
 Using merely the data would seem to require an STST equivalent later and I don't think you would want that. Putting a stringified ST into the code wouldn't make any sense - no way to store the data. So are you directly creating Dot output then?
Yes. This is an option for Java and C# too of course. Form Ter's comments you can see that ST is just a convenient way to allow people to use a different header for the dot spec really. The C version is no more complicated than the Java version, it just does not use a ST.
  
that's
what I did in the C version. Otherwise you can almost cut andpaste the
Java 
into C# I think.
    

The "otherwise" refers to decision to leave the ST dependency there?
Yes :-)

Jim
_______________________________________________
antlr-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-dev

Reply via email to