ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Stephen Chin" <>
Subject Re: ANTLR task for ANT
Date Wed, 19 Jun 2002 00:48:31 GMT
Ant development team,

While using the antlr optional task I ran across some limitations.  In
particular, I needed to be able to use the -glib option to specify a super
grammar.  With the blessing of Stephane and Erik, I decided to improve the
antlr task by updating the attributes.

I have attached the diffs for the source file change, documentation change,
and test case changes, as well as one additional file needed for the new
unit test cases.  Please consider these for inclusion in the core ant


----- Original Message -----
From: Stephane Bailliez
To: Stephen Chin ; ;
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 8:35 AM
Subject: RE: ANTLR task for ANT


I apologize for the late reply. Your change are very positive and you have
my +1 for this.
Keep in mind however that we are close to Ant 1.5 release so it might not be
in this release but in 1.6.

Please send your cvs diff -u in ant-dev as soon as possible (with updated
documentation as well ;-)



-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Chin []
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 8:12 PM
Subject: ANTLR task for ANT

Erik and Stephane,

I am working on a parser for XQuery in ANTLR, but due to the complexity I've
been forced to split the grammar into multiple files and use inheritence.
As a result, I need to call the "-glib supergrammer" option in order to
generate the final grammar.

The current ANT task has no mechanism to specify command-line options to
ANTLR, and it looks like there are a whole slew of new options that have
been added since you first created the ANT task.  Rather than hack around
this by using a generic java task, I was thinking it would be better to
update the ANTLR task to support the new options.

I would be happy to contribute some source code to make this happen.  I will
probably end up hacking ANT myself anyway, just for the purposes of my
project, but I would rather see those changes rolled back into the base.

What do you guys think?

View raw message