What about EBNF? That's pretty standardized, no?
Ted Neward
http://www.javageeks.com/~tneward
On Sun, 21 Nov 1999, Michael Emmel wrote:
> Vincent Risi wrote:
>
> > Andreas Rueckert wrote:
> >
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > On Thu, 18 Nov 1999 Paul Mclachlan wrote:
> > >
> > > The next problem occured when I wanted 2 parsers to use the same base classes
> > > for the AST. Never managed to do that, and I couldn't patch JavaCC, since there
> > > were no sources available.
> >
> > TLA's are fine if you know what they stand for, what is AST?
>
> Abstract Syntax Tree : )
> Whats a TLA ?
>
> Umm yes I was looking at antltr it allows sub classing.
> It looks like I like the power of antlr and the syntax of Javacc : )
> It should not be too hard to write a Javacc--> antlr preprocessor.
> Then antlr can accept Javacc grammers ...
> Anyone intrested ????
>
> What would be really nice god forbid is if there was some sort of standard syntax
> for
> java parser and lexer generators. Life would be cool if you could publish a
> "standard" grammer.
>
> Mike
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
