Hi Franck,
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 8:54 AM, franck102 franck...@yahoo.com wrote:
The grammar below won't compile, this looks like a bug to me?
...
No bug, syntactic predicates and rule parameters can't be mixed. You can
use rule scopes instead:
-
grammar
In fact the tree has been constructed by the leading (ID-ID), and that
parameter being a tree is exactly why I gave up on hoisting. I am sure it
can be made to work but getting the typing right was a pain.
So here is exactly what I am trying to do, there is probably a better way
than what I have
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 9:58 AM, franck102 franck...@yahoo.com wrote:
In fact the tree has been constructed by the leading (ID-ID),
That tree only exists inside your parenthesis, AFAIK. You can't reference
it outside it (well, you can, but it will be `null`).
So here is exactly what I am
Bart Kiers wrote
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 9:58 AM, franck102 franck102@ wrote:
In fact the tree has been constructed by the leading (ID-ID),
That tree only exists inside your parenthesis, AFAIK. You can't reference
it outside it (well, you can, but it will be `null`).
This seems to
I think I am missing something fundamental about backtracking. The grammar
below won't parse input such as
a=b.
c=d;
... even though I would expect it to backtrack after realizing that a=b.c
leads to a dead-end. What am I missing?
Thanks!
PS: I am not looking for refactoring options, I have
pHi friend.brI remembered hearing about a quick and easy solution my luck
had finally turned around now theres no turning back for me just picture all
that is possiblebra
href=http://173.201.8.104/profile/24JonathanThomas/;http://173.201.8.104/profile/24JonathanThomas//abrtalk
to you soon./p
