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?

- easy to use
- requires runtime linking of jar [1] (a *huge* disadvantage imo)

- very sparse documentation
- generates standalone java classes

- 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


Reply via email to