Yes, this is the conclusion I'm coming to. Thanks much. Cameron. Kojeware Corporation
On Apr 9, 2010, at 10:11 PM, "William B. Clodius" <[email protected] > wrote: > > On Apr 9, 2010, at 11:02 AM, Cliff Hudson wrote: > >> Well, it's not always true that grammar specs are, for instance, >> LALR(1) or >> LL(k). In such cases, you have to rejigger the grammar to make it >> work. >> The important thing is (or should be) that the grammar you do >> produce, >> regardless of the technicalities, will parse what you intend and >> nothing >> more. > <snip> > However it is often useful to make the grammar you parse be > different from the official grammar for the language. Often some > constructs that the language language differentiates in the syntax > may best (sometimes only) be distinguished during the semantic > analysis. Error reporting can also be better if the lexical and > syntactic properties of the accepted language is looser than the > official language, though care must be taken to ensure that the > semantic analysis detects all such errors and does not acidently > give such errors meaning. > > 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.
