You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@velocity.apache.org by Jason van Zyl <jv...@periapt.com> on 2000/09/22 01:41:51 UTC
Multiple Syntaxes
Hey,
I am finding that supporting multiple syntaxes with
JavaCC is becoming a PITA. What do others think
about only supporting one syntax for now?
We can definitely make translators later. It's
not impossible to maintain multiple syntaxes
but it is becoming tedious because there's
no built in support. It will probably become
a maintenance problem. Maybe Antlr is better
at this.
jvz.
--
Jason van Zyl
jvanzyl@periapt.com
Re: Re[2]: Multiple Syntaxes
Posted by Jason van Zyl <jv...@periapt.com>.
On Sat, 23 Sep 2000, Terence Parr wrote:
> Thursday, September 21, 2000, Daniel L. Rall hath spoken:
> >> We can definitely make translators later. It's
> >> not impossible to maintain multiple syntaxes
> >> but it is becoming tedious because there's
> >> no built in support. It will probably become
> >> a maintenance problem. Maybe Antlr is better
> >> at this.
>
> > I've always been in favor of a single syntax. +1
>
> +1 for single syntax.
The second syntax is going to disappear tonight
in another overhaul of the grammar.
jvz.
--
Jason van Zyl
jvanzyl@periapt.com
Re[2]: Multiple Syntaxes
Posted by Terence Parr <pa...@jguru.com>.
Thursday, September 21, 2000, Daniel L. Rall hath spoken:
>> We can definitely make translators later. It's
>> not impossible to maintain multiple syntaxes
>> but it is becoming tedious because there's
>> no built in support. It will probably become
>> a maintenance problem. Maybe Antlr is better
>> at this.
> I've always been in favor of a single syntax. +1
+1 for single syntax.
[Also, to handle multiple syntaxes, you can either put semantic
predicates into the grammar (less flexible/separable) or build a
common intermediate form (i.e., tree) that a single tree-parser /
engine handles.]
Terence
--
Chief Scientist & Co-founder, http://www.jguru.com
Co-founder, http://www.NoWebPatents.org -- Stop Patent Stupidity
parrt@jguru.com
Re: Multiple Syntaxes
Posted by Jason van Zyl <jv...@periapt.com>.
On Thu, 21 Sep 2000, Daniel L. Rall wrote:
> Jason van Zyl wrote:
> >
> > Hey,
> >
> > I am finding that supporting multiple syntaxes with
> > JavaCC is becoming a PITA. What do others think
> > about only supporting one syntax for now?
> >
> > We can definitely make translators later. It's
> > not impossible to maintain multiple syntaxes
> > but it is becoming tedious because there's
> > no built in support. It will probably become
> > a maintenance problem. Maybe Antlr is better
> > at this.
>
> I've always been in favor of a single syntax. +1
That's what I'm starting to feel like :)
jvz.
--
Jason van Zyl
jvanzyl@periapt.com
Re: Multiple Syntaxes
Posted by "Daniel L. Rall" <dl...@collab.net>.
Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> Hey,
>
> I am finding that supporting multiple syntaxes with
> JavaCC is becoming a PITA. What do others think
> about only supporting one syntax for now?
>
> We can definitely make translators later. It's
> not impossible to maintain multiple syntaxes
> but it is becoming tedious because there's
> no built in support. It will probably become
> a maintenance problem. Maybe Antlr is better
> at this.
I've always been in favor of a single syntax. +1
--
Daniel Rall <dl...@collab.net>
http://collab.net/ | open source | do the right thing
Re: Multiple Syntaxes
Posted by bob <bo...@accurev.com>.
+1 on NO Multiple Syntaxes. Should only have one,
in my opinion.
-bob
On Thu, 21 Sep 2000, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I am finding that supporting multiple syntaxes with
> JavaCC is becoming a PITA. What do others think
> about only supporting one syntax for now?
>
> We can definitely make translators later. It's
> not impossible to maintain multiple syntaxes
> but it is becoming tedious because there's
> no built in support. It will probably become
> a maintenance problem. Maybe Antlr is better
> at this.
>
> jvz.
>
> --
>
> Jason van Zyl
> jvanzyl@periapt.com
>