Ken Fox wrote: > I'm messing around with regex code generation by > converting first to a grammar. The modifiers seem > to need intimate knowledge of regex -> grammar > conversion. This may be a quirk of my approach. > People using tree traversal or generating code > directly from the regex might see something else. > I suspect modifiers will still be deeply connected > with the internals.
I would imagine that modifiers would be passed some kind of hierarchical representation of the rule they're modifying (i.e. a parse tree of it), and would be expected to manipulate that structure representation. The final state of the representation would be used as the (post-modified) rule. For example, perhaps the modifier would be passed the $0 from the parser rule that parsed the rule contents. Damian
