Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Walter Bright" <newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote in message
Does Goldie have (like Spirit) a set of canned routines for things like
numeric literals?
No, but such things can easily be provided in the docs for simple
copy-paste. For instance:
DecimalLiteral = {Number} ({Number} | '_')*
HexLiteral = '0' [xX] ({Number} | [ABCDEFabcdef_])+
Identifier = ('_' | {Letter}) ('_' | {AlphaNumeric})*
{StringChar} = {Printable} - ["]
StringLiteral = '"' ({StringChar} | '\' {Printable})* '"'
All one would need to do to use those is copy-paste them into their grammar
definition. Some sort of import mechanism could certainly be added though,
to allow for selective import of pre-defined things like that.
In the regexp code, I provided special regexes for email addresses and URLs.
Those are hard to get right, so it's a large convenience to provide them.
Also, many literals can be fairly complex, and evaluating them can produce
errors (such as integer overflow in the numeric literals). Having canned ones
makes it much quicker for a user to get going.
I'm guessing that a numeric literal is returned as a string. Is this string
allocated on the heap? If so, it's a performance problem. Storage allocation
costs figure large when trying to lex millions of lines.
There are many pre-defined character sets though (and others can be
manually-created, of course):
http://www.devincook.com/goldparser/doc/grammars/character-sets.htm
Can the D version of Goldie be turned into one file?
Assuming just the library and not the included tools (many of which could be
provided as part of the library, though), and not counting files generated
for the static-style, then yes, but it would probably be a bit long.
Long files aren't a problem. That's why we have .di files! I worry more about
clutter.
