Have you listed you BOOL rule before your NESTED rule? That would probably work
as is.
However I would do this:
fragment BOOL :;
NESTED : '/*'
( options {greedy=false;} :
('bool*/')=> 'bool' { $type = BOOL; }
| ('/*')=>NESTED
| .
)*
'*/'
;
I must say however that whoever thought that was a good idea really did not
think it through. What language are you parsing that someone thought it was
clever to do that?
Jim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:antlr-interest-
> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael Siff
> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 11:35 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [antlr-interest] Lexing nested comments
>
> Hi, I am an ANTLR newbie, so I apologize if the answer to this question
> ends up being trivial.
>
> I am trying to write an ANTLR lexer for a language that ignores nested
> C-style comments. So, something like:
>
> x = 3 /* /* this is ignored */ as is this */ ;
>
> should just produce four non-hidden tokens: ID = NUMBER ;
>
> I know there are several ways to approach this including using
> recursive
> definitions for the comment tokens as in something like:
>
> NESTED : '/*' (NESTED | .)* '*/' { $channel = HIDDEN } ;
>
> However, the language in question has the need to consider tokens like:
>
> /*:bool:*/
>
> as a way of specifying explicit type information. Currently, what I
> have
> gets the nested comments correctly, but then ignores the /*:bool:*/ as
> if it is a comment even though I have a separate rule like:
>
> BOOL : '/*:bool:*/' ;
>
> Is there an easy way around this problem?
>
> Years ago I accomplished something very similar using lex/flex, and
> then, later, in SableCC using explicit lexer states where I used a
> separate token '/*' to mark the beginning of a comment and then to
> enter
> the "comment" state (and as a side effect bumped up a nested-comment
> counter). Since '/*' is shorter than '/*:bool:*/' it did not prevent
> the
> BOOL token from being discovered; explicit states were used to indicate
> that the BOOL token should only be scanned if in the "normal" (not the
> "comment") state.
>
> It seems to be that possibly ANTLR's semantic predicates could be used
> to solve this problem, but whenever I try as in:
>
> BOOL : { n == 0 }? '/*:bool:*/' ;
>
> if n > 0 it just throws an exception rather than ignoring that rule.
>
> Any light that can be shed on this will be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> - Michael
>
> List: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-interest
> Unsubscribe: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/options/antlr-interest/your-
> email-address
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.
