Manuel... Manuel Mall wrote:
Recursive descent is like magic, isn't it? I agree that it's a very tidy approach, which I have used a few times. What motivated me here, though, was just the desire to have the flow of processing follow the natural hierarchy of the data. Such an approach starts with a guaranteed basis of algorithmic clarity; the alternative, it seems to me, starts with a guaranteed basis of obscurity. That, certainly, is what I found when I tried to follow the logic trail through the code.Peter,thanks for the update and explanation on your Alt-Design. To be honest: I like it. Reminds me very much of my first exposure to programming language processing (Compilers) nearly 30 years ago => top-down recursive-decent parsing for Pascal. I still think its the best parsing model around (beats YACC type stuff by a long way) in terms of ease of development / understanding / use.
The other idea was the old unix principle of the pipeline. Isolate the components and have them communicate via (possibly bi-directional) pipelines of data/commands/events. This doesn't map very cleanly onto the processes that operate on the FO tree and the layout/Area trees, but it was just what I needed to invert the flow of control during FO tree building.
There are good reasons why the layout is not susceptible to the same simple solution.. I do have a number of ideas to contribute, and when the web site is restored I will be referring to some of the notes I have made and posted there.Do you have any similar simple / effective ideas for the layout part which, following the discussions on this list, the new FOP design under CVS HEAD seems to struggle most with?
Peter
--
Peter B. West [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.powerup.com.au/~pbwest/
"Lord, to whom shall we go?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
