On Jul 3, 2010, at 2:58 PM, Matt Palmer wrote: > Well, this gets wierder, and to my mind seems to point to a bug in > Antlrworks itself. > > I verified that I could consistently run the debugger using one simple > grammar, but not another. On the non-working grammar, I commented out rules > and tokens (starting from the most complex), until, lo-and-behold, after one > rule went the debugger started working. I then re-enabled all the other > rules one by one, and the grammar kept working. The lexer rule that wasn't > working was a literal followed by a fragment, looking like this: > > BITMASK : '&' HEX_BYTE ; > > I then re-enabled this rule... and the debugger kept working. The only > difference at this point between where I started with a non-working debugger > and where I finished with a working debugger is I moved a couple of rules to > the end (comments and whitespace both going to hidden channels) to simplify > commenting them out. > > I've faced this problem before, I still have no idea what causes it and how > to fix it. Maybe this will make sense to someone. > > Matt. <snip>
Normally I would expect bitmask to be a syntactic element not a lexical element. If so then change all occurrences of BITMASK to bitmask. Otherwise have youm marked HEX_BYTE as a fragment? 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.
