I agree. '.' as root should be ok. I'll have to go back and make it context sensitive. Right now, '.' can be a subtree as well. it would mess up analysis. Ter On Nov 29, 2008, at 3:23 PM, Gavin Lambert wrote:
> At 09:58 30/11/2008, Oliver Zeigermann wrote: > >Hmmm. Just checked that with the latest snapshot of ANTLR 3.2, > >but it really does not work, but it should, right? Why can "." > >not be a tree root? > > Yes, that's what Sam Harwell and myself were discussing earlier in > this thread; I think we agree that this should be considered as valid. > > (I gave a detailed description of how I think it should behave > earlier on, but the general idea was to make ANTLR parse the tree as > if it were a "real" tree rather than the "flat" tree that it's > actually implemented as.) > List: http://www.antlr.org:8080/mailman/listinfo/antlr-interest Unsubscribe: http://www.antlr.org:8080/mailman/options/antlr-interest/your-email-address --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "il-antlr-interest" group. To post to this group, send email to il-antlr-interest@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/il-antlr-interest?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
