On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 11:42 PM, Mike J. Bell wrote:
> I have a main grammar that passes control to two different island
> grammars to parse a language. One island grammar is an island because
> it's so big and can be used in a context outside the main language,
> and the other island has vastl
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 12:19 AM, Andreas Meyer
wrote:
> Ok ... there are two options:
> (2) use island grammars, as advertised on the Wiki
> (http://www.antlr.org/wiki/display/ANTLR3/Island+Grammars+Under+Parser+Control).
> however, this is quite complicated to set up
>
> Island grammars are nic
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 2:40 AM, Sam Harwell
wrote:
> I’m using a heavily relaxed NUMBER token in my lexer so I can provide better
> error messages. The problem I’m having occurs when input such as 1..2 is
> reached. The '..' should be an OP_RANGE token, not part of the number.
>
>
>
> NUMBER
>
>
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 12:04 AM, Sam Harwell
wrote:
> You should tokenize on a per-line basis. Never allow a token to span
> multiple lines, and never allow lookahead/back to cross a newline
> boundary. I've documented this process in my blog followed by a email on
> this list earlier this week
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 6:01 AM, Sam Barnett-Cormack
wrote:
> I'm not sure an island grammar would work, as I need the eventual AST of the
> "WITH SYNTAX" block to be included in the final AST of the master grammar.
>
> Unless, that is, I can invoke a full lexer/parser combination, get the tree
>
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 4:45 AM, Sam Barnett-Cormack
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> In my ongoing project, I need to parse a really crazy structure that
> wants to change the lexing rules dependent on syntactic factors. I hate
> this.
>
> Within the thing I'm talking about, whitespace and comments are hand
The problem is most likely your DecimalLiteral rule:
DecimalLiteral
:
;
Non-fragment lexer rules that can match no input will cause infinite loops.
This may only occur for certain input as other input will be matched
before ANTLR checks whether the troublesome rule can match. Having
input
2009/3/24 Gabriel Petrovay :
> Hi Indhu,
>
> I was trying to simplify the example such that I still get the error and the
> example is simple enough for everybody to understand the problem.
>
> Here is the corrected grammar:
>
> //
> grammar k;
> options {
>
If you know ahead of time what language is to be used and all keywords
are acceptable identifiers you could use an action in your identifier
rule to check a language specific hashtable mapping text to token type
and set the resulting token type based on that. e.g.
@lexer::members {
private Hash
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Andreas Meyer
wrote:
> Maybe it's possible to partition the set of keywords, but that would be
> some effort: figuring out for 800 keywords, where they appear, what is
> the context they are used in etc. Note that the problem only appeared
> after switching to ANTL
't match the second ('0'..'9')+ loop of the float
rule.
As ANTLR only considers single tokens it is essentially matching the input
against an implicit rule:
MTOKENS: (INT_LITERAL|FLOAT_LITERAL|DOT|ID);
You can see this rule in the generated mTokens method. Given this
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Evan Driscoll wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm teaching a compilers class at University of Wisconsin-Madison.
> Traditionally the class has followed sort of a classic sequence of
> projects 'write a lexer', 'write a parser', etc., and in the past has
> used either JLex/Ja
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 11:55 PM, Bruno Marc-Aurele
wrote:
> Thanks a lot Johannes.
>
> Has anyone used heterogenous trees? I would like to know how customisable my
> AST
> can be... I will rewrite my question concerning this so you don't need to look
> for it in the previous messages:
>
> Q: I
ANTLR combines predicates and the token lookahead when creating DFAs
so it will still have a predictor. It will also hoist predicates from
called rules into parent rules to disambiguate. So those rules will
generate a fairly complex predictor.
I would say you are better to just accept any number o
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 7:46 PM, Gary R. Van Sickle
wrote:
> > From: Jim Idle
> >
> > On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 08:44 -0600, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Not sure if this is something that should be obvious or
> > not, but is there a
> > way, completely in AN
Until then you can use the remote debugging feature of ANTLRWorks.
Generate the code with the -debug command line option (can be set in
ANTLRWorks preferences), then run your application code however you
want, it will pause waiting for the debugger to connect when you
select remote debugging in AN
na <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Quoting Thomas Brandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 2:01 PM, Olya Krachina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> > I am new to antlr and i seem to be stuck on this.
>> > i need to have 2
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 2:01 PM, Olya Krachina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
> I am new to antlr and i seem to be stuck on this.
> i need to have 2 datatypes defined: int and float, currently i have them
> defined
> like this in my .g file:
>
> INT: ('0'..'9')+;
> FLOAT:('0'..'9')*(
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Bill Mayfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Suppose I want to recognize each pattern 'okko' in a random string of
> characters. Some examples:
>
> aoookokkaaa -> should yield one match of 'okko'
> aaaokkookko -> should yield two matches of 'okko'
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 10:28 PM, Bill Mayfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thomas: This one doesn't work however
>
>
> grammar test;
>
> start : chaos* pattern* chaos*;
>
> pattern : T1 T2 T2 T1;
>
> chaos : T1 | T2;
>
> T1 : 'o';
> T2 : 'k';
>
> It s
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 7:36 PM, Bill Mayfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay... but what if this isn't a lexer problem? Suppose I my input is
> only made up of 'o' and 'k'
>
> okkkooo -> 1 match
> oookkokkoook -> 2 matches
>
> what would my grammar look like?
>
> grammar test;
>
> s
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like to report errors from rules because I want to reuse existing,
> non-ANTLR parsers and make the lexer rules a bit more lenient than
> what's actually in the language. For instance, in
>
> IPV4_ADDRESS : ('0' .. '9
Can't you reuse the ANTLR routines for this, e.g.
BaseRecognizer.computeContextSensitiveRuleFOLLOW and
BaseRecognizer.computeErrorRecoverySet. Otherwise I think you want to
be operating on the follow set stack maintained by ANTLR
(RecognizerSharedState.following) rather than the static follow set
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 11:11 PM, Peter Bulychev
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I have a parse tree and I want to know, in which lines of parsed file do
> nodes of this tree reside.
>
> ParseTree class itself doesn't have getLine function, but its parent
> (BaseTree class) does have.
> Un
24 matches
Mail list logo
