Hi Guillaume This is not covered by the current code, but it can be added. I guess this could be set as “metadata” on types, package, properties, methods, and fields?
-Jesper > On 11. mar. 2016, at 11.11, Guillaume Laforge <glafo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > By the way, I had a question (unrelated to the below thread, but related to > the grammar) :-) > > Do you keep the comment information? > It's something we've always said we should support, and it would tremendously > help making a less hackish groovydoc tool. > Having AST nodes for JavaDoc comments would really be great. > > Guillaume > > On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Jesper Steen Møller <jes...@selskabet.org > <mailto:jes...@selskabet.org>> wrote: > Hi Groovy-Dev > > Here’s another update on the progress on the Antlr4 parser, as maintained on > https://github.com/jespersm/groovy.git > <https://github.com/jespersm/groovy.git> (in the antlr4 branch). > To play with it, try: > > $ git clone -b antlr4 https://jespe...@github.com/jespersm/groovy.git > <https://jespe...@github.com/jespersm/groovy.git> > $ cd groovy > $ gradle -PuseAntlr4=true console > > I’ve fixed a number of issues: > Support method pointer operator > Attributes/method/property names as strings/gstrings > Real support for unary plus and minus (mimics old parser’s behaviour) > Compilation units not ending with semicolon or newline > Slashy strings could span lines, confusing division statements and comments > I can now explore the new grammar and AST building using the Console, which > is fun, but it’s very easy to find unsupported constructs. Mapping out the > full Groovy grammar from the documentation alone is quite a task. Just today, > I discovered lacking support for ‘assert’ and for ’super’-calls. The smaller > issues currently are: > assert > super() > Full Unicode letter support for identifiers > Support identifiers as property names and map literal entry names > > The bigger issue is with converting the ASTBuilder to pure Java, a task I > havn’t started yet. Actually, this poses a different question for AST > generation: Whether to switch from tree-walking the parse tree (so whole tree > must be kept in memory), to the listener-based approach, where the AST is > built mostly bottom-up, ensuring smaller memory footprint. > > So you can help me with a couple of answers: > Memory: Is this an issue I should be focusing on — and is there a test to > baseline against? > I’ve discovered a small issue with unary syntax. Currently, nested unary > expressions are not supported without parenthesis: Try e.g. - -1 or + -1. Is > this intentional, or just an artifact of the precedence-refactored Java > grammar? > > -Jesper > > > > > -- > Guillaume Laforge > Apache Groovy committer & PMC Vice-President > Product Ninja & Advocate at Restlet <http://restlet.com/> > > Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/ <http://glaforge.appspot.com/> > Social: @glaforge <http://twitter.com/glaforge> / Google+ > <https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts>
