Hello, In this post : http://www.antlr.org/pipermail/antlr -interest/2010-October/039862.html The following was mentioned:
> Also, remember to only call external Helper methods from your parsers/tree > walkers. Do not embedded any code other than the calling code and pass the > whole tree or token pointer. This means your calls won't care what gets done > by the helper API and the helper API will not care how the parsers decided > to call it. Anything else is an unmaintainable mess. > > So, does this imply that it is easier to walk the AST manually rather than embedding actions in the tree grammar ? Based on what i have tried till now, it seems that getting the embedded actions to work, as expected, is not easy. So, I'd like to know if there is some benefit that I would get out of writing embedded actions in tree grammars? Also, there is this post that seems to advocate manual tree walking: http://www.antlr.org/article/1170602723163/treewalkers.html So, I'm confused as to whether continue trying to make tree grammars do what I want, or switch to manual tree walking. Appreciate your guidance... Thank you for your time :) Best Regards, Amr Muhammad Cairo Univ. Computer Eng. Grad. twitter:@amrmuhammad <http://twitter.com/amrmuhammad> 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.
