Achint Mehta wrote: > 2. The second option is that all the tokens have to given as alternate > rules/token with SPECIAL_STRING. Again, in a big/complicated parser, all the > tokens in the whole parser have to be repeated where-ever I intend to use > the SPECIAL_STRING. This can be simplified if I give the tokens in the > definition of SPECIAL_STRING iteself. But still in a parser which could use > tens or hundreds of tokens, it would seem to be impractical to repeat all > the tokens in SPECIAL_STRING rule and other similar rules (intended for > collecting the generic string).
You only need one rule that collects all of the tokens, which can then be included as an alternative in SPECIAL_STRING and similar rules. This is the approach I use for ECMAScript 5 (which has some contexts in which keywords are treated like identifiers). The duplication is mildly irritating, but it still works quite well in practice. -- David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ http://davidsarah.livejournal.com 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
