On 2/1/2010 6:52 PM, Terence Parr wrote:
> Should I think about a (...)^[1] construct or something for v4?
>
Yes, just please don't further overload the caret and brackets with
completely different contextually dependent meaning! Also, its
ambiguous without the parens and if a space is put between the ")" and
"^" it might form a completely different valid construct.
Perl-like would be (...){n,m} -- if n and optional m must be ints, then
it is space tolerant and cannot be confused with an action (actually use
of the parens is conceptually consistent with use of parens for actions
- here defining a function applicable to the preceding element).
Since you are making a clean break from everything v2, maybe (...)#1 --
makes the construct read very literally.
_______________________________________________
antlr-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-dev
