Hi Michael, Eric, Jim, thank you very much for discussing the question of the use of superclasses for separating logic from grammar. Indeed, you have convinced me thoroughly that the superclass approach is in *most* cases very appropriate - as Jim elaborated, only small and simple grammars without the perspective of reuse would make the all-in-one alternative really attractive.
A sidenote to Jim: the archetype does currently not introduce a superclass of the tree parser... I think the tree parser is not less of a candidate than the parser - so you might consider adding a superclass for it, too. Second sidenote: using the archetype, the plugin version 3.3 is proposed, but selecting it results in an error - this may confuse. Kind regards, -- Hans-Juergen 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.
