That sounds great. I really know nothing about JavaCC so I was trying to figure a way of not using the StandardTokenizer to tokenize the code.
This is something I'd like to get working on so if you have any pointers I'd spend the time to get the work done. Thanks --Peter On 6/1/02 3:43 PM, "Brian Goetz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> What do people think the right way to handle this issue for the range >> queries? My suggestion is to do a indexOf() for "-" and create the one or >> two tokens. That is, don't use the analyzer to determine what the tokens are >> here. Is there a problem with this? > > We can also use JavaCC's lexical modes to have different sets of rules > for different tokens. > > The range stuff always felt to me like it was nailed onto the side of > the query parser. How about we step back and define a formal syntax > for acceptable range queries, and then approach that as a parsing > problem, instead of hacking this hack further? > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
