On 18 February 2011 09:52, chris king <[email protected]> wrote: > For my 2c I like Scott's proposal. Build a lexer that generates tokens given > (1) a lexical grammar and (2) the set of possible tokens the parser could > consume.
It's horses for courses I guess, with either approach seeming easier or more intuitive given the particulars of the task (and the person writing the code). For my projects and style of thinking, Jim's proposal is very appealing. The lexer just delivers what's on offer and the parser's role is to use or reject that input. To me this seems conceptually simpler than the parser saying what it would like next and the lexer working out whether it can deliver it. I like simple things :) Michael 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.
