On Feb 1, 2010, at 7:31 PM, Gerald Rosenberg wrote:
> On 2/1/2010 6:52 PM, Terence Parr wrote:
>> Should I think about a (...)^[1] construct or something for v4?
>>
>
> Yes, just please don't further overload the caret and brackets with
> completely different contextually dependent meaning! Also, its ambiguous
> without the parens and if a space is put between the ")" and "^" it might
> form a completely different valid construct.
oh right! gees. ^ is wrong.
> Perl-like would be (...){n,m} -- if n and optional m must be ints, then it is
> space tolerant and cannot be confused with an action (actually use of the
> parens is conceptually consistent with use of parens for actions - here
> defining a function applicable to the preceding element).
that might work well. too bad that I can't use it now for v4 :(
> Since you are making a clean break from everything v2, maybe (...)#1 -- makes
> the construct read very literally.
ha! # is not a bad symbol to use!
Ter
_______________________________________________
antlr-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-dev
