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

COOL: Declaring fragment lexical rules #707

Merged
merged 5 commits into from May 21, 2017

Conversation

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@linonetwo
Contributor

linonetwo commented May 17, 2017

Make case-insensitive rules clear.

@linonetwo

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@linonetwo

linonetwo May 17, 2017

Contributor

This CI takes too long a time to build...
Were there more contributors, It will become horrible!

Contributor

linonetwo commented May 17, 2017

This CI takes too long a time to build...
Were there more contributors, It will become horrible!

@linonetwo linonetwo changed the title from Declaring fragment lexical rules to COOL: Declaring fragment lexical rules May 17, 2017

@KvanTTT

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@KvanTTT

KvanTTT May 17, 2017

Member

@linonetwo you can comment out all languages except COOL and then test it locally with maven plugin.
@teverett can we leave only one oraclejdk7 and remove other oraclejdk8, openjdk7 JDKs from .travis configuration? What aspects do they check?

Member

KvanTTT commented May 17, 2017

@linonetwo you can comment out all languages except COOL and then test it locally with maven plugin.
@teverett can we leave only one oraclejdk7 and remove other oraclejdk8, openjdk7 JDKs from .travis configuration? What aspects do they check?

@linonetwo

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@linonetwo

linonetwo May 17, 2017

Contributor

Hold this for a while, I'm building a code transformer, and find some bug in this grammar. :P

Contributor

linonetwo commented May 17, 2017

Hold this for a while, I'm building a code transformer, and find some bug in this grammar. :P

@teverett

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@teverett

teverett May 17, 2017

Member

@linonetwo- holding

@KvanTTT hm. Well the advantage is that there have been instances in the past where a grammar worked on on JDK and not another. I'm not sure what the justification to remove checking across JDK's would be. It is a very long build, but actually the 3x JDK builds run in parallel.

Member

teverett commented May 17, 2017

@linonetwo- holding

@KvanTTT hm. Well the advantage is that there have been instances in the past where a grammar worked on on JDK and not another. I'm not sure what the justification to remove checking across JDK's would be. It is a very long build, but actually the 3x JDK builds run in parallel.

fix: precedence
now assignment has lowest precedence
@linonetwo

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@linonetwo

linonetwo May 21, 2017

Contributor

OK, I've finished it!

Contributor

linonetwo commented May 21, 2017

OK, I've finished it!

@teverett

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@teverett

teverett May 21, 2017

Member

@linonetwo thanks and congrats

Member

teverett commented May 21, 2017

@linonetwo thanks and congrats

@teverett teverett merged commit b821cfa into antlr:master May 21, 2017

1 check passed

continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment