> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 12:36:51 -0500
> From: "Mark R. Diggory" <[log in to unmask]>
> 
>>> Is your CQL parser Antlr or JavaCC based at all?
>> 
>> Yeesh -- I've never even heard of these things, sorry.  I am not
>> really a Java hacker (if there is such a thing).  I am just a
>> Unix/C/Perl hacker who took a wrong turn one day and accidentally
>> wrote a Java library :-)
>> 
>> So the answer to your question is: no.  So far as I know.
>
> Antlr's nice, its been ported to a number of languages:
> 
> http://www.antlr.org/share/list

Oh, that _does_ look nice.  It looks as though this could be
summarised as "YACC done right".  (It's always bothered me that the
output of YACC is so very impenetrable; I've wondered myself about
making a YACC-alike that emits a recursive descent parser instead, and
now I see that someone's done it for me!)

>>> I'm thinking an alternative here is to use Antlr or JavaCC, to
>>> build a parser generation "framework". Then cases such as this can
>>> extend the parser generation with handlers for their
>>> implementation, the simplest example implementation would be A SAX
>>> event generator.
>> 
>> Beep, beep, beep.  Architecture astronautics alert!  :-)
>
> Sorry, my Bad...

No, not at all -- no "bad".  Just a culture clash :-)

> I just meant that the developers using the packages would use
> something like Antlr to generate their own implementations with
> custom handlers (which would be more efficient than transporting
> everything to XML and using XSLT to get to another format).

Agreed.

 _/|_	 ___________________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor  <[log in to unmask]>  http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "Our problems are mostly behind us.  What we have to do now is
	 fight the solutions" -- Stult's Report.