Hi Vincent,
2009/9/29 Vincent Hennebert <vhenneb...@gmail.com>: >> How about specifing the grammer and using a tool such as JavaCC to >> generate the actual parser? This way you could focus more complete >> grammer and have to spend less time writing the parser. > That would be the same as using ANTLR. I feel that this is a bit > overkill for just parsing the font shorthand property, although that may > prove to be useful for other properties that can accept complex > expressions. > That said, JavaCC is an interesting suggestion, I didn’t think of it. If > a choice had to be made between ANTLR and JavaCC, which one would win? ANTLR: - easy to use - requires runtime linking of jar [1] (a *huge* disadvantage imo) JavaCC: - very sparse documentation - generates standalone java classes SableCC: - better documentation - LGPL (And therefore maybe not feasible, although it would only be used at compile time and not runtime) [1] http://beust.com/weblog/archives/000145.html Max
