On 1/29/2012 10:55 AM, Erik Christiansen wrote: > <...> > > What further simplifies the task is that we can, for example, group the > clauses which are common to G0, G1, etc., and give them a name. The part > of the grammar tree for G1 then gets the handling of the common clauses > for free, and we only need to tack on the stuff that G0 doesn't have. > Not only does this reduce coding and testing effort, but it ensures > consistency across commands, where it should exist. i.e. Anything which > is even moderately common in gcode should be specified only once in the > grammar. Whatever qualms I may have about the difficulty of interjecting meaningful error messages into an interpreter based on lex'ing and parsing is overcome by the benefits you point out here.
Regards, Kent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Try before you buy = See our experts in action! The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3, Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2 _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
