>
> You can generally do what you need though like this:
>
> s : {start();} ( alt1 | alt2 | alt3) { end(); } ;
>
> I also recommend that you do not use backtracking for a production parser.
Well, I'm not using backtracking on the whole parser, but only the one
induced by syntactic predicates here and there (and in a single rule
with options { backtracking=true; }, because the semantic predicates
there would seriously hinder readability).
>
> > Would it be correct to say that during backtracking the 'stack' is not
> > properly unwound,
> Sort of ;-) It is complicated to get all of this to work exactly like
> try {} catch {} finally {}. I think I can probably do it, but it needs
> some effort in the templates. I'll 'rule' on this for the next release.
A bit too late for me I'm afraid, with release only weeks away :-) But
with the information I have now, I think I can work around it.
Thanks,
Sven
List: http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/antlr-interest
Unsubscribe:
http://www.antlr.org/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
il-antlr-interest+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/il-antlr-interest?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
