Skip to content

Add lexer rules to grammar validation #310

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged

Conversation

BillWagner
Copy link
Member

Include the stub definitions for lexer members into the grammar file.

Include the stub definitions for lexer members into the grammar file.
@BillWagner BillWagner requested a review from RexJaeschke May 4, 2021 19:50
@BillWagner
Copy link
Member Author

@RexJaeschke If you merge this PR, it will go into your ANTLR branch, and it will update #261

@RexJaeschke RexJaeschke merged commit 48ca579 into dotnet:Rex-resolve-ANTLR-issues May 4, 2021
@BillWagner BillWagner deleted the lexer-member-rules branch May 4, 2021 20:41
RexJaeschke added a commit that referenced this pull request May 4, 2021
* Replace '<...>' rule alternatives, use ranges, add semantic predicates

* Add lexer rules to grammar validation (#310)

* Add lexer rules to grammar validation

Include the stub definitions for lexer members into the grammar file.

* Fix a script error. > vs. >>

* fix syntax issues in unsafe code

After these changes, the only concerns are the mutual left recursion rules.

Co-authored-by: Rex Jaeschke <[email protected]>
BillWagner added a commit that referenced this pull request May 5, 2021
* Replace '<...>' rule alternatives, use ranges, add semantic predicates

* Add lexer rules to grammar validation (#310)

* Add lexer rules to grammar validation

Include the stub definitions for lexer members into the grammar file.

* Fix a script error. > vs. >>

Co-authored-by: Bill Wagner <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants