Hi Damien,
> doesn't something like this work?
>
> code: procs* funcs*
> -> ^(CODE ^(PROCS procs*) ^(FUNCS funcs*))
>
I don't think it would, because it still requires that procs be grouped
together in the source code, as well as funcs. Something like
code: (proc | func)*
would be more accurate, but then I still have my same tree problem.
Though your idea did trigger some vague notion in my brain meaties that maybe I
can do a combo top-down and bottom-up visitor to bubble procs and funcs
apart... I'll have to think about this.
Other ideas?
--S
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
