> Hi all,
>
> Im facing this problem of converting parser grammar to tree grammar.
> I have some rules which incrementally build ASTs like the following
> example:
>
> postfixExpression : (primary->primary)
> ( '(' args=expressionList ')' ->
> ^(CALL $postfixExpression $args)
> | '[' ie=expression ']' -> ^(INDEX
> $postfixExpression $ie)
> | '.' p=primary -> ^(FIELDACCESS
> $postfixExpression $p) )*;
> When i convert this to tree grammar by removing the parser grammar leaving
> alone the rewrite rules, im unable to use the $postfixExpression in the tree
> grammar ... What is the equivaent i should use to denote the node already
> built for the rule?
Thanks in advance,
--
Best Regards,
Jevitha
"Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see
what you believed in."
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
List: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-interest
Unsubscribe:
http://www.antlr.org/mailman/options/antlr-interest/your-email-address
